JBL's Internal Monster Wiring

[pctower]

Well, given that you and okie have attributed several statements and corporate decisions to Mr Toole himself, it would seem to me that it's more likely that we ask you to prove your initial statements.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence, I feel you should be a man for once and confront Mr. Toole himself with your accusations. Then, feel free to violate net ettiquette amd post his responses here on the forum.

Aftet all, we're not all lawyers. We find ouselves trying to abide by certain rules of conduct whenever possible, not just when we find it convenient.

It's not like y'all have any problems making outlandish statements. ...just backing them up and expecting others to prove you wrong.

Oh, and when corrosponding with Mr Toole, you might want to let him know you consider him a whore.

Well, given that you and okie have attributed several statements and corporate decisions to Mr Toole himself, it would seem to me that it's more likely that we ask you to prove your initial statements.

[Oh, and when corrosponding with Mr Toole, you might want to let him know you consider him a whore.

Oh good Mark - you're on a roll. Point to one place where I have attributed a single statement or corporate decision to Dr. Toole. I have merely been commenting on claims and positions taken by others and raising questions. I don't know what Toole thinks about cables and I don't know what control over corporate decisions he does or doesn't have. I'm not making claims as others are.

I have no interest in e-mailing Toole. I'm not the one who is making claims. But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,

No Mark, again you mischaraterize what I said. I said either post the e-mails or admit you can't substantiate your claim. If you didn't have Toole's permission to post the e-mails then you shouldn't have discussed them or their content. You and mtry broke the rule by even mentioning the contents.

[markw]

Oh good Mark - you're on a roll. Point to one place where I have attributed a single statement or corporate decision to Dr. Toole.

Here ya go, phil. From post 14 in this thread. nice options you leave him.

So which is he Mark? Is he (1) a professional engineer who, for engineering reasons, supports the use of Monster Cable in the JBL speakers and supports the recommendation regarding use of speaker cables, or (2) a whore?

I have no interest in e-mailing Toole. I'm not the one who is making claims.

Why not? Afraid of what he might say? Actually, okie is the one making the claims. He should be the one sending the inquiry.

But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.

You DO like calling people whores, don't ya? Now, be a man and see if it's deserved.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,

No Mark, again you mischaraterize what I said. I said either post the e-mails or admit you can't substantiate your claim. If you didn't have Toole's permission to post the e-mails then you shouldn't have discussed them or their content. You and mtry broke the rule by even mentioning the contents.

Nope. No mischaracterization at all. Just calling a spade a spade. What's this "you and mtry" stuff? Where do you see me claiming to have received an email? Putting words in someone else's mouth again, are we?

They don't have to post personal emails. They merely have to state the content. Using your logic as applied in this thread, it's your position to prove he didn't say what they said in any emails. After all, you have no problem defending okis' position without needing proof, don't ya? Nice try twisting of the legal system.

Now, consuler, getting back to post 14 in this thread. Would you please be so kind as to please prove your assertion that Mr Toole is either a whore or a liar. Use whatever evidence you can provide.

Please don't get all blustery and huff and puff and demand others to provide it for you by asking them to prove he's not. That's quite disingenious of you.

[Monstrous Mike]

You and mtrycrafts are the one's making claims about what Toole says in personal e-mails. You are the one's having the burden of proof. Isn't that what you are always telling yeasayers about their claims?

Right. And yeasayers are always saying that you need to try it for yourself if you want to comment on anything so your logic dictates that you should go and email him for yourself.

Either produce the evidence to support your claim or admit that your claim is without substantiation.

You can tell a man's arguement has run out of gas when he makes statements like this one about a claim that is a personal correspondence or conversation. Of course these "claims" are heresay and in a court it is not allowed but really instead of issuing a subpeona for Dr. Toole, you can simply email him to corroborate our "claims". Surely that is easier than me bringing home a truckload of cables, amps, CD players, etc. and "listening" to them so I can corroborate yeasayer claims.

Given your attitude toward the truth, why should anyone believe what you say?

And further indication of a waning arguement is the ad hominem attack. Why don't you just call him a liar? As a matter of fact, you have just called me and Mtry liars as well since you know we have said the same thing as Pat D.

I appreciate your intelligent discourse and even tolerate your dung-disturbing style from time to time but your latest posts are simply empty, illogical and bitter.

[Monstrous Mike]

But if I found out that he is convinced that the Monster Cables JBL uses and promotes are not any better than zip cord then I would call him a "whore" for allowing his name, picture, writings and reputation to be used as a prime marketing tool by Harmon.

Perhaps he could be called a "whore" if zip cord had the same performance as that Monster cable. I guess we could call the entire Harmon company a "whore". As a matter of fact, if zip cord is the same as Monster and other exotic cables, then the whole audio cable industry is probably a "whore".

Wouldn't that would make you a "john"?

[E-Stat]

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.

Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw

[Bobby Blacklight]

JBL has been using "Monster Cable" in it's "Audiophile" speakers since the late 80's. It started with the XPL series and has been on and of ever since. This has nothing to do with Dr. Toole but is a marketing point. If want to see what JBL really thinks open up a Pro cabinet. You will find 16ga standed wire plain and simple.

[pctower]

What you propose to accomplish with them in a Cable Forum is an unanswered question. Are you just being vicious?

Are you just being vicious?

Yes.

[Pat D]

Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw

That goes beyond the question I was dealing with. I am satisfied that Dr. Toole did deal with the question at NRC way back when and that should inform PCT that in fact he has. However, anyone not satisfied with the evidence can ask Dr. Toole directly.

Now, as to what Dr. Toole may think to day, that's a different question. As I know mtry to be an honest and trustworthy person, I take his word that he has corresponded with Dr. Toole and knows his current opinions on the matter. If anyone doesn't like the evidence, they are free to ask Dr. Toole.

You mention further knowledge. What is this further knowledge which would indicate that special interconnects and speaker cables are audibly better than ordinary interconnects and speaker cables? We have been waiting a long time for it to materialize. We do know that length and gauge matter and speaker load matter, but those are generally relatively easy to deal with, and mtry has the references handy. What is the further knowledge you refer to? Audioholics has done some articles reviewed by peers, and eyespy has a list of references on his site:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...age/index.html

[pctower]

Here ya go, phil. From post 14 in this thread. nice options you leave him.






Why not? Afraid of what he might say? Actually, okie is the one making the claims. He should be the one sending the inquiry.




You DO like calling people whores, don't ya? Now, be a man and see if it's deserved.

Now, since y'all have no problems asking others to violate the unwritten net ettiquette against posting personal corrospondence,



Nope. No mischaracterization at all. Just calling a spade a spade. What's this "you and mtry" stuff? Where do you see me claiming to have received an email? Putting words in someone else's mouth again, are we?

They don't have to post personal emails. They merely have to state the content. Using your logic as applied in this thread, it's your position to prove he didn't say what they said in any emails. After all, you have no problem defending okis' position without needing proof, don't ya? Nice try twisting of the legal system.

Now, consuler, getting back to post 14 in this thread. Would you please be so kind as to please prove your assertion that Mr Toole is either a whore or a liar. Use whatever evidence you can provide.

Please don't get all blustery and huff and puff and demand others to provide it for you by asking them to prove he's not. That's quite disingenious of you.

Post 14? Here's what you said that I was responding to:

No, the question at issue was whether the NRC under Dr. Toole's direction looked into whether they needed to worry about special cables. Ian Masters' articles are not second hand information on this question, BTW.


You were the one supporting the claim that Toole believes cables don't matter. And I repeat, if that is his beleif then allowing himself to be used to promote products which endorse Monster cables is whoring. How many times and how many different ways do you want me to say that?

Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?

Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters.

[markw]

If you want to feel ya got me, go ahead. Have a ball.

"Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?"

No, but I must say I am fascinated by the way you so casualy throw it around when refering to others. You call divorce lawyers whores in one post and here you insinuate that Mr Toole is one. There are possibly other references I missed but these two I can vouch for.

Aii I've ever done is point to your use of this word. I guess it's one of them thar fancy legal terms you hi falutin' lawyers use all the time in court.

"Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters."

What do guts or being afriad have to do with anything. You huff and puff to blow the house down and then want me to go someplace and join forces with you at AA? I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You, OTOH, simply want to start pissing contests. In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window. As you've proven both hereand at AA, ad hominum attacks, name calling, avoiding direct questions, throwing red herrings are the order of the day. Right and wrong concepts don't matter. The biggest plick wins. I admit defeat to you.

And, as far as your helping Steve. Now that's funny. What are you, his comic relief? I've seen you acting in his behalf over there. You help his cause about as much as an anchor helps a swimmer.

Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

The posts stand as posted.

Proud of yourself for your contributions here?

Feel ya did your profession proud?

Feel ya proved your points?

Since logic fails, here' a lawyer joke for y'all.

After winning a big case, two lawyers decide to take an ocean cruise. All goes well for the first few days but, as luck would have it, the boiler explodes and the boat sinks in the middle of nowhere.

The two lawyers cling onto a life preserver and wind up drifting towards a small island with one coconut palm tree on it. The coconuts and fish provide their food but wanting to be rescued, they decide to take turns climbing up to the top of the tree to look for passing boats.

This goes on for weeks. Finally, one day the guy up top yells down “Hey! I think I see something out there.”

The other guy says “What is it?” The guy up top says “I can’t tell. It’s too far away but it seems to be drifting in our direction.”

The next day, the other guy up top says “I see it too. It’s definitely drifting towards us!”

So, over the next few days they track its progress. The guy up top says, “I see clearer now. It looks like it’s small raft with someone in it.”

The next day it’s even closer. The guy up top says “It’s definitely coming our way and, believe it or not, I think there’s a naked lady in it!”

Finally, it washes up on their island. In it is a beautiful unconscious blonde.

The one lawyer says to the other “Ya know, it’s been a long time for both of us. Do ya think we could? we could… uh… you know.”

The other lawyer says “Do WHAT??? Spit it out already!”

The first lawyer said. “It’s been a long time. I’m going crazy. Do you think we could, uh… you know, …screw her?”

The second lawyer says “Outta what? This lousy rubber raft”?

I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

[mtrycraft]

There may be no need for anyone to contact Dr.Toole if, as you imply, you have already discussed the matter with him. All you have to do is post the correspondence. Unless some questions remain unanswered, that should be the end of it.

Correspondence long gone over the several computer changes, worms, viruses, etc.

Best if you contact him. Then all your questions can be answered first hand, not through others.

He won't bite, nor call you names.

[mtrycraft]

You and mtrycrafts are the one's making claims about what Toole says in personal e-mails. You are the one's having the burden of proof. Isn't that what you are always telling yeasayers about their claims?

Either produce the evidence to support your claim or admit that your claim is without substantiation. Given your attitude toward the truth, why should anyone believe what you say?

Easy to substantiate or refute. Email him directly. Scared? Embarrassed? I no longer have the emails.

[mtrycraft]

Why is that? Pat, have you learned anything at all yourself since 1981? I would hope so. Why is it that you think that Toole might not have done likewise? Why is it that you believe that there have been zero advances in twenty years?

rw

Not about cables. But-
If we are so wrong, please clue us in with the evidence of further knowledge about cables. LOL . Don't get a headache searching for that evidence. It doesn't exist but, please, by all means exert some energy tracking it down, for a change.

[mtrycraft]

There may be no need for anyone to contact Dr.Toole if, as you imply, you have already discussed the matter with him. All you have to do is post the correspondence. Unless some questions remain unanswered, that should be the end of it.

I did find an old copy of my correspondence in my library, not in computer as I indicated.
Cable is BORING. Ohms law, nothing more, nothing less. Amps are almost as boring. Nothing mysterious.
You still need to contact him if you want to know for sure.

[E-Stat]

Not about cables. But-
If we are so wrong, please clue us in with the evidence of further knowledge about cables. LOL . Don't get a headache searching for that evidence. It doesn't exist but, please, by all means exert some energy tracking it down, for a change.

You may find at some time that experiencing life is far more enjoyable than just talking about it. If / when you come to that realization, there is much to be perceived past your preconceived notions.

rw

[pctower]

If you want to feel ya got me, go ahead. Have a ball.

"Do you get aroused over words like "whore"?"

No, but I must say I am fascinated by the way you so casualy throw it around when refering to others. You call divorce lawyers whores in one post and here you insinuate that Mr Toole is one. There are possibly other references I missed but these two I can vouch for.

Aii I've ever done is point to your use of this word. I guess it's one of them thar fancy legal terms you hi falutin' lawyers use all the time in court.

"Don't talk to me about afraid. Why don't you show some guts and come over to AA to help out Steve and me where it really matters."

What do guts or being afriad have to do with anything. You huff and puff to blow the house down and then want me to go someplace and join forces with you at AA? I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You, OTOH, simply want to start pissing contests. In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window. As you've proven both hereand at AA, ad hominum attacks, name calling, avoiding direct questions, throwing red herrings are the order of the day. Right and wrong concepts don't matter. The biggest plick wins. I admit defeat to you.

And, as far as your helping Steve. Now that's funny. What are you, his comic relief? I've seen you acting in his behalf over there. You help his cause about as much as an anchor helps a swimmer.

Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

The posts stand as posted.

Proud of yourself for your contributions here?

Feel ya did your profession proud?

Feel ya proved your points?

Since logic fails, here' a lawyer joke for y'all.

After winning a big case, two lawyers decide to take an ocean cruise. All goes well for the first few days but, as luck would have it, the boiler explodes and the boat sinks in the middle of nowhere.

The two lawyers cling onto a life preserver and wind up drifting towards a small island with one coconut palm tree on it. The coconuts and fish provide their food but wanting to be rescued, they decide to take turns climbing up to the top of the tree to look for passing boats.

This goes on for weeks. Finally, one day the guy up top yells down “Hey! I think I see something out there.”

The other guy says “What is it?” The guy up top says “I can’t tell. It’s too far away but it seems to be drifting in our direction.”

The next day, the other guy up top says “I see it too. It’s definitely drifting towards us!”

So, over the next few days they track its progress. The guy up top says, “I see clearer now. It looks like it’s small raft with someone in it.”

The next day it’s even closer. The guy up top says “It’s definitely coming our way and, believe it or not, I think there’s a naked lady in it!”

Finally, it washes up on their island. In it is a beautiful unconscious blonde.

The one lawyer says to the other “Ya know, it’s been a long time for both of us. Do ya think we could? we could… uh… you know.”

The other lawyer says “Do WHAT??? Spit it out already!”

The first lawyer said. “It’s been a long time. I’m going crazy. Do you think we could, uh… you know, …screw her?”

The second lawyer says “Outta what? This lousy rubber raft”?

I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You're here to tell lies about me and bore us all with uncreative, hackneyed lawyer jokes.

I trust your hatred of lawyers guaranties you'll be voting Republican this fall. In fact I hope all who believe that lawyers (or any other group of people you want to substitute) are the cause of all the problems they are incapable of dealing with themselves vote Republican this fall. With that huge slice of Democrats switching sides Bush/Cheney is a sure bet.

In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window.

Before you can have rational discussion you have to have truth. You can't make up claims and statements and attribute them to someone who never said such things. But, as a master of the creation of strawdogs, you haven't figured that out yet. Which part of your reason for being here does lying fall under: (1) answering questions, (2) sharing ideas, or (3) having fun? Must be the third one.

[markw]

I'm here to answer questions, share ideas and have a little fun.

You're here to tell lies about me and bore us all with uncreative, hackneyed lawyer jokes.

I trust your hatred of lawyers guaranties you'll be voting Republican this fall. In fact I hope all who believe that lawyers (or any other group of people you want to substitute) are the cause of all the problems they are incapable of dealing with themselves vote Republican this fall. With that huge slice of Democrats switching sides Bush/Cheney is a sure bet.

In that sort of competition, rational discussion is thrown out the window.

Before you can have rational discussion you have to have truth. You can't make up claims and statements and attribute them to someone who never said such things. But, as a master of the creation of strawdogs, you haven't figured that out yet. Which part of your reason for being here does lying fall under: (1) answering questions, (2) sharing ideas, or (3) having fun? Must be the third one.

Truth? To you, truth is whatever you can bend other peoples words to appear. Real truth is lost to you. Perhaps a side effect of being a lawyer for so long?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

Everything else was simply your bluster, dude. ...huffing and puffing to blow the house down.

Next thing we all see is that you're accusing Mr. Toole of either believing the cables make an audiable difference or he is, in your so eloquent wording, being a whore.

If you have such noble sensibilities as to be offended by me and my impertenant manner, I would hope you would at least have the common decency to discuss your accusations with Mr Toole himself before throwing that around on the internet.

Oh, that's right. You're a lawyer. I thought you guys said you have ethics? Shouldn't you be above that mud slinging?

Anyhow, I'm done with you. I've said all I need to say and you've pretty much proven yourself for what you are. If you wish to continue a discussion with me, I'll respond as I see fit.

And, I have no great hatred for lawyers. Just egomaniacs that hide behind the title and want to sling shiite and engage in mental masturbation in a public place.

Keep on keepin' on phil. But I ain't gonna play with you anymore. You'll just have to go on playing with yourself.

Actually, they are pretty good lawyer jokes, or so I've been told. Here' another one, phil. I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

A dad walks into a market with his young son. The boy is holding a quarter.
Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts panicking, shouting for
help.

A well dressed, serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter. Then she gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurriedly, across the market.

Reaching the boy, the woman pulls the boy's pants down, carefully takes hold
of his testicles, and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more firmly.

After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.

Releasing the boy, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her profusely, saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before. It was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"

"No," she says, "Divorce attorney."

...are we having fun yet?

[pctower]

Truth? To you, truth is whatever you can bend other peoples words to appear. Real truth is lost to you. Perhaps a side effect of being a lawyer for so long?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

Everything else was simply your bluster, dude. ...huffing and puffing to blow the house down.

If you so firmly believe that Mr Ttoole did, in fact, approve these for sonic reasons or is, in your so eloquent wording, a whore, then perhaps you should discuss it with him.

Not throw that stuff around on the internet. Oh, that's right. You're a lawyer. That's your stock in trade, isn't it?

Anyhow, I'm done with you. I've said all I need to say and you've pretty much proven yourself for what you are. If you wish to continue a discussion with me, I'll respond as I see fit.

And, I have no great hatred for lawyers. Just egomaniacs that hide behind the title and want to engage in mental masturbation in a public place.

Keep on keepin' on phil. But I ain't gonna play with you anymore. You'll just have to go on playing with yourself.

Actually, they are pretty good lawyer jokes, or so I've been told. Here' another one, phil. I know a million of 'em, not counting you, of course.

A dad walks into a market with his young son. The boy is holding a quarter.
Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The dad realizes the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts panicking, shouting for
help.

A well dressed, serious looking woman in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer, neatly folds her newspaper and places it on the counter. Then she gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurriedly, across the market.

Reaching the boy, the woman pulls the boy's pants down, carefully takes hold
of his testicles, and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more firmly.

After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.

Releasing the boy, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her profusely, saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before. It was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"

"No," she says, "Divorce attorney."

...are we having fun yet?

You claim I've made statements. What statements? All I've ever said on this thread is that marketing made the decision about the cables, not Mr Toole.

And your substantiation for that statement is? (which has been my whole point all along in this thread)

If you so firmly believe that Mr Ttoole did, in fact, approve these for sonic reasons or is, in your so eloquent wording, a whore, then perhaps you should discuss it with him.

So in desperation you resort to the BIG LIE. I've already clearly stated I don't know what Toole thinks about cables and I don't care. I have made no statement claiming his position is one way or the other.

Oh, and speaking of "comic relief" (as you did in your last post), I guess you consider quoting Carl Sagan to be just clowning around:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335808.html

And this guy is an example of the Trust me on this, phil. The only one impressed by your contributions there is you.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335907.html

I'd point you to the guy who responded to another of my posts in that thread who said his respect for me had gone up 2000%, but unfortunately Rod didn't like the truth I was saying about him and Jon Risch and they deleted that part of the thread.

But, then again, Mark, I guess you really don't care about stuff like this. You're too busy having "fun" over here yuking it up about sexual molestation of minors.

[markw]

I liked it when Monstrous Mike posted it here a few years ago. Come to think of it, you were here around then. Hmmm...

I must say, nice use of the Carl Sagen quote to make you look principled. It never hurts to plagerize someone else's great thoughts when backed into a corner.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

Ya keep on amazing me with your sleazy tricks phil. But, then again, you are a professional, aren't ya?

In any case, they ain't your words. Posting them isn't the same as writing them. As you've just proven, any disingenious fool can cut and paste.

Running around with a great thinkers thoughts as if to imply you could have ever come up with them. "See, I can post someone else's grand thoughts! See how wondrous and great I am!"

Face it phil. Carl Sagen got the accolades, not you. That's like the guy carrying the flag thinking everyone is saluting him.

Anyhow, moving on, since you saw fit to reference a post over there, here's one I found.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335800.html

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

Now, as far as contributions beyond your involvment in pissing contests on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

No joke this time. This is getting too easy. Oh, yeah, here's a quick one...

What's the difference between a dead skunk on the road and a dead lawyer on the road?

The skid marks in front of the skunk!

Ba Da Boom!

(thank you, thank you.. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip the waitstaff)

I gota a million of 'em. Keep on asking for 'em phil

[pctower]

I liked it when Monstrous Mike posted it here a few years ago. Come to think of it, you were here around then. Hmmm...

In any case, they ain't your words. Posting them isn't the same as writing them. As you've just proven, any disingenious fool can cut and paste.

Running around with a great thinkers thoughts as if to imply you could have ever come up with them. "See, I can post someone else's grand thoughts! See how wondrous and great I am!"

Really now, phil. That's not unlike a little kid running around in his daddy's shoes, thinking it makes him a grown up.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

Well, since you saw fit to reference a post over there, here's one I found.

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335800.html

Now, as far as contributions beyond pissing contest on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

No joke this time. This is getting too easy. Oh, yeah, here's a quick one...

What's the difference between a dead skunk on the road and a dead lawyer on the road?

The skid marks in front of the skunk!

Ba Da Boom!

(thank you, thank you.. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip the waitstaff)

I gota a million of 'em. Keep on asking for 'em phil

I thought you were through with me.

Ya could at least acknowledge that you initially were made aware of them by Monstrous Mike here at Audioreview but no, you want them to think you came up with them all by yourself. Big man, phil.

I have posted that quote numerous times and in the vast majority of instances I go out of my way to credit MM with directing me to it. Sorry, I'm not 100% perfect.

Ever heard of this guy before? I have. I've never heard of you outside of here, though.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335800.html


Sorry to be dense but I miss your point entirely.

I took unmittigated grief here from Chuck once when I merely cited one part of one article Clark had written which I agreed with. Other than that, I have taken Clark on frequently.

Now, as far as contributions beyond pissing contest on cables go, I cannot think of any time you've had anything to say except, in very rare occasions, to tout your Vandy;s and your personal friendship with their owner.

Beyond that, nada.

Well, I just reposted the following, but apparently your memory dims quickly:

httphttp://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=5227

Oh gee, what do you know? I attributed the Sagan quote to MM in that recent post.

Here's a post from AA where I took on a perenial favorite of this board, Jon Risch:

Well, let’s take a closer look at this. At the portion of your website relating to speaker cables (which you frequently link to from the Cable Asylum:

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/s1.htm

you make claims that the following phenomena affect cable sonics:

1. skin effect/self-inductance
2. strand jumping
3. inductive reactance
4. “magnetostriction”
5. insulator/dialectric

You then included the following quote:

From the results of controlled listening tests, the following
materials preferences have been established.
And based on those “controlled listening tests” you proceed to make recommendations for DIY speaker cables.[/B]
At the portion of your website relating to interconnects, you have the following language:

Information compiled over years of controlled subjective
listening tests of cables.

Many of the differences heard were subtle, however, taken as a
whole, selection of a cable with all the preferred materials
and construction can make a significant overall difference.

These results are based on listening tests, not just measurements,
or conjecture, tests which were conducted blind, and under
controlled conditions. Many have asked what methods I used in
my listening tests.

No, I did not use the ABX switchbox, cable swaps were used.
Over a period of months and years of testing, I developed a few
twists on test methods and procedures, which I present in my
AES paper, preprint #3178, "A User Friendly Methodology for
Subjective Listening tests", presented at the 91st AES convention,
October, 1991. Consisting of 33 pages of text, and 19 references,
it is too long to try and present here, and I urge anyone interested
in the details to get a copy from the AES, it is available for $5,
and can be ordered from:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html

The results I present in this note are based on comparing one
cable to another, under blind (or often, double blind) conditions,
where levels were always checked for compliance to +/- 0.1 dB,
and the comparisons varied one aspect of the cable at a time, i.e.,
one cable might be identical, except the insulation was foamed
PE instead of foamed PP, etc. or the wires were bare copper for
one, and tinned copper for the other, etc. So what I am saying, is
that not only did I reliably identify different cables, but I was able to
identify a single cable variable at a time. Dozens and dozens of
different coaxial and twisted pair cables were listened to, over the
course of hundreds of hours of listening tests, stretching over the
course of years of effort.

So, Jon, given all this, would you permit me to start a thread here at the Cable Asylum with the following post:

"Jon, I have been visiting your website recently. I see that you describe a number of factors that you believe can cause audible effects in cables. I have conducted a survey of as much of the current scientific literature as I could find, and I am unable to locate much in the way of theoretical support for your theories. In addition, I am aware that when you advance those theories at AR, you are often confronted with arguments that, even if all of your cable theories were true, they could not result in sufficient electronic effects in cables that could be translated into any sonic difference that would not fall well below the current generally recognized level of human hearing.

I noticed that you contend that your theories have been verified through listening tests, often blind tests. As your theories on cables seem at odds with most mainstream references I have been able to locate, wouldn’t it be important for you to post far more detail on the blind tests you have conducted so that a visitor to your site is able to more fully evaluate the scientific validity of your theories?

Moreover, because your theories are outside the mainstream, and because you claim on your website that these theories have been verified by blind listening tests, don’t you believe it would be beneficial for additional independent double blind tests to be conducted to verify your somewhat unusual theories? If such blind tests were to be conducted, do you have any recommendations as to the proper protocol to be followed in order to duplicate the results you say you have obtained.? "

I suggest that if you would not allow a thread of this nature to proceed on the Cable Asylum, then you essentially have a virtual monopoly on the subject of double blind testing on this forum.

You say:

In the years this forum has been in existence, since July of 1999, NO ONE has ever complained about this link bothering them OR that they felt it was violating the spirit of the rules, until Steve Eddy very recently pointed it out as a means of furthering one of his bizarre arguments.

Sure, Jon, and segregated public school existed in the United States for decades without much complaint. Did that mean that they were ok?

Moreover, you can’t resist getting in your swipe at Steve can you? Bizarre arguments?

Why, because they went line and verse through your theories, applying basic electronics to challenge those theories, and you could never respond with anything that made scientific sense?

Remember at this very point Jon that if you just donned you moderators hat in response to my last sentence, that you’re the one that started this by referring to Steve’s arguments as bizarre.

Jon:

Since you're obviously getting ready to ban me anyway, and since I don't care, and since your pathetic attempt to get the last word in before cutting off debate is something I won't stand for, here is my response to your last post. It is the situation that I am describing that is controversial; not the fact that I'm describing it.

Because it appears as though one of the main intentions is merely to stir controversy. You admited to this over at AR, have you turned over a new leaf, or taken up an 11 step plan recently? It sure doesn't seem like it given your recent posts here.

Please show me where I said my main intention is to stir controversy. Most of my posts here are very non-controversial. In this particular case I'm merely calling it the way I see it.

The anti-DBT rule should be enforced accross the board at the Cable Asylum. As it is, you have the luxury of promoting your own theories and claiming DBT backup, and no one else has that luxuruy on this Asylum. I don't think that's fair, and my only motivation is to speak out when I see something that isn't fair.

I find this especially interesting, given that you have posted that you are searching for a basic electronics primer. How in the world could you possibly judge if the responses were indeed correct, and applicable, and did not overlook anything? Wouldn't you have to be dependant on the opinion of someone else? Who would you have gone to to ask about these matters? Someone from AR? Gee, I can't imagine any of them would say bad things about me! Maybe to the orginator of these "rebuttals"? I don't suppose he would admit to any mistakes or imperfections, eh?

I was joking Jon. I don't have the strongest technical background possible, but I spent my first two years at Princeton University in an EE and honors physics program, before I got bored and converted my major to intellectual history. I hold my extra-class ham radio license (KY7A) so I have more than a passing knowledge of electronics.

Moreover, I certainly expect that on a lot of this technical stuff, I would hope to look to expert opinion. I just prefer that it not be limited to just you and John.

As for my theories, and some of the speculation that I engage in regarding audio cables, these have been discussed before, and will undoubtedly get discussed again. However, the only aspect that I ever claimed was shown to be so by my listening tests was the materials ranking portion. You make a blanket statement regarding all of my web site content as if I said otherwise.

But, Jon, that means you get to be the sole expert here on materials who can claim DBT backup. Can't you possibly see the unfairness of that?

Since I KNOW that you know what kind of arguments you are attemting to make, I have to assume that you have a purpose in doing so. That purpose does not seem to be a very positive one, nor does it seem to be concerned with the well-being of this forum, or your stated concerns for making this a better place to post at.

My only purpose is simply to call it like it is. I have no personal animosity towards you. I just think that the impossible conflict you have put yourself in is not in the best interest of the board. I'm only one person and that is just one opinion. However, I don't think I should be cut off from expressing my opinion or have my motives questioned. You can attack my arguments without attacking me.

Thanks anyway, but I'll pass on the private e-mail. I tried that once and offered the peace branch, but you never responded.

In any event, I have no further intention of pursuing this. I have no particular personal need to see this board run in any particular matter. I've said what I need to say, and I assume you will now choose to take action against me.

My purpose here was not to try to get banned. I believe that I have been trying to contribute to the betterment of this board. I'm sure you see it quite differently, and in the end, you call the shots.


Here's something I posted here about a year ago in response to questions from a newcomer to home theater. By the way, I was the only one who bothered to take the time to help him out. Where were you Martk?

Here's the way I do it. I have a 5.1 receiver and use all five audio channels and a separate subwoofer. I have three video sources - satillite, VCR and DVD.
My receiver has video switching capabilities so I could run all three video sources into my receiver and use its video output to go directly to a video input of my TV (in which case I would be using the TV just as a monitor, bypassing its tuner. However, I found that running video signal through my receiver seriously degrades the signal.
So I run each video source directly to a separate video input on my TV. To select a particular source, I use my TV remote to select the proper input. In this mode, I'm using the TV as just a monitor, bypassing its tuner. I prefer this because the video results are better and it allows me to use my satellite tuner box to select satellite channels, which is important if for no other reason than it is the only way I can receive the premium channels.
For audio, I run the digital output from my satellite tuner box and DVD player to the receiver, which permits the receiver to decode the digital signal for 5.1 purposes. I run the audio outputs of the VCR directly to the receiver. In this configuration, I use the receiver to select the proper audio source.
When I change sources, this configuration means I have to separately select the video source using my TV remote to select the proper video input and the receiver remote to select the proper audio input (in actual use, I have the TV remote parameters programed into my receiver remote so I only have to use one remote to control both video and audio inputs, but I still have to make each selection separately, swithing the receiver remote between receiver mode and TV mode). My wife doesn't appreciate this approach, but I think it works best.
Also, in the above description I actually treated the video sources as all separately going into the TV to facilitate the description. My actual setup is somewhat different. The DVD video signal goes directly to a separate TV video input and my VCR video output (I actually use the S-video out for both DVD and VCR out because both have that source output option and my TV has that input option). However, my satellite video signal (also S-video) does not go directly to the TV, but instead goes to my VCR and passes directly through the VCR to the TV video input I have assigned to the VCR. I actually hate VCRs and don't use it much. So usually I'm not playing a tape, but running the satellite signal straight through the VCR to the TV. As long as the VCR is on (I leave all of my electronics on all of the time) and no tape is playing the signal passes straight through. If I play a tape the VCR is sending the tape video signal to the TV. When I stop the tape the VCR automatically switchs to sending the satellite video signal to the TV. I don't know if most VCRs do this, but I have never seen a VCR that didn't have a switch that allowed you to switch the VCR's video output between the VCR's own signal, or straight pass-thru of the signal coming to the VCR from a satellite or cable tuner or from an antenna. Now, when I record a TV program on the VCR, I have to manually tune the satillite channel to be recorded using the satellite tuner box. There is a way I could program the VCR so that it controls the satellite channel to be recorded by controlling the satellite tuner box. This would permit me to set up the VCR to record several different programs in the future, even on different satellite channels. However, this is far too complicated for me, and as I said, I don't use my VCR very much (most pernicious machine ever invented by man, as far as I'm concerned).
Now, one more wrinkle. The set up of my receiver all must be done using menu programs that appear on the TV screen. If you follow closely the above scheme you will note that there is no direct video connection between the receiver and the TV. So I run the rf video output of the receiver (that's the output where you put those stupid coax connectors that have a bare wire for the center run and a screw-on thing for the outter connection that is always a total pain in the ass to screw on - there's a technical name for that connector, but I can't remember it right now - maybe its an F-type or something like that) and I run that cable directly to the similar rf input on the TV. When I need to access that onscreen menu for adusting my receiver I switch the TV video input to the regular antenna rf input and use the TV tuner to tune in the channel that the receiver uses to output its rf signal).
I hope that at least some of this helps and hasn't totally confused you. I don't have a technical background and it took me a long time to figure all this out. I could not have possibly done it without all the manuals (even though they were all uniformly poorly written).

So Mark, that's a sample of what you label as "nada". Would you care to share with us some examples of you non-nada contributions.

[markw]

Good one, phil. Now, THAT's funny!!!

I don't even have a lawyer joke to top that one. Nope Nope Nope. Ya got me good.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

A year!! Bwa ha ha...

And, as far as Jon Risch goes, I see you as both the same. Equaly well equiped to engage in a pissing conrtest with each other. You've both long ago lost the original objectives and are more involved in the fight as opposed to the answers. Sorta the Jason vs. Freddy of the Audio world.

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

A year! Bwa ha ha... (My God, I can't stop laughing!)

[skeptic]

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335800.html

Wow!!!!?????!!!!!?????!!!!?????

I could hardly believe that such a thread and the comments it cited would be allowed by any moderator. Talk about an uncivilized exchange? And at a site where as you put it about two years ago; "they have more interesting and informative discussions there in a week than we have here at AR in a year." I mean we see a few tiffs here now and again, a few jabs and barbs but this goes beyond the pale Phil. And you still go back there to endure more of that kind of talk again and again? Why? Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks? And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard. I'd make some nasty comment but I am far to civilized to say what is really on my mind and certainly far to civilized to post on a board like CA which tolerates that kind of abuse among its participants. How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick. Get help.

[pctower]

Good one, phil. Now, THAT's funny!!!

I don't even have a lawyer joke to top that one. Nope Nope Nope. Ya got me good.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

A year!! Bwa ha ha...

And, as far as Jon Risch goes, I see you as both the same. Equaly well equiped to engage in a pissing conrtest with each other. You've both long ago lost the original objectives and are more involved in the fight as opposed to the answers. Sorta the Jason vs. Freddy of the Audio world.

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

A year! Bwa ha ha... (My God, I can't stop laughing!)

Oh, BTW, that post where you give due credit to MM? That's here at AR where we all know he posted it first. That still leaves the impression at AA that you came up with it all by your lonesome. Nice try, consuler.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...an&r=&session=

Nice try, Bozo.

If you want to see my contributions. just lurk at any other forum here and other forums. I guarantee you won't have to search back a year to fined one.

Oh, I'll give you as far back as you want to go. Just point me to some of your great contributions. You're the one that brought up the subject - so put up or shut up.

[pctower]

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/335800.html

Wow!!!!?????!!!!!?????!!!!?????

I could hardly believe that such a thread and the comments it cited would be allowed by any moderator. Talk about an uncivilized exchange? And at a site where as you put it about two years ago; "they have more interesting and informative discussions there in a week than we have here at AR in a year." I mean we see a few tiffs here now and again, a few jabs and barbs but this goes beyond the pale Phil. And you still go back there to endure more of that kind of talk again and again? Why? Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks? And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard. I'd make some nasty comment but I am far to civilized to say what is really on my mind and certainly far to civilized to post on a board like CA which tolerates that kind of abuse among its participants. How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick. Get help.

Are you really the masochist I referred to jokingly in one of my previous posts? I hope not but it's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

Ah! It hurts sooo goood!

BTW, I thought that by excluding discussions of DBTs they would avoid flame wars at CA. So flame wars there not only exist, they are tolerated. They just don't want flame wars there about the subjects that they don't want discussed such as DBTs. Like those germaine to the crux of the issue of whether there are audible differences in wire, a fact which they themselves readily admit to in their no DBT rule explanation. So which is it, they don't want any flame wars or just no flame wars about subjects dear to their hearts...and their backers pocketbooks?

I don't know - you'll have to take that up with them. My position is clear. If they are going to impose an anti-DBT rule and allow the moderator to delete or ban anything that challenges him, then they should ban all technical discussion on that board.

And you still say the whole thing isn't just an advertising billboard.

I've never said it is or isn't. I've asked for you to provide proof to back up your unequivocal claim that it is. Apparently you don't understand the distinction. Have you ever considered asking for a return of YOUR tuition?

How about you Phil, is that YOUR kind of place or isn't it. This is not about technical issues or discussions. It's about why any self respecting person would participate in that whether as the person dishing it out or taking it. Sick Phil, very very sick.


CA is not my kind of place and I don't participate. I still try to fight the good fight elsewhere at AA. I realize that participating in a board where you don't have the comfort and safety of preaching to the choir is certainly something according to your value system you would consider sick.

[skeptic]

Debating is one thing. Saying regrettable things in the heat of an arguement happens. That's not what its about over there. It's about gratuitous abuse for the sole purpose of belittling people they don't agree with. It's about attacking people when you don't have any way left to attack their arguement. It is inherent in the sale of any religion. And like all religions, sooner or later the bottom line is power and money. And in a free country, it only works if you let it.

I said I don't have PROOF that they use that board as a way to influence their participants into thinking along the lines that audiophile cables are an inherent part of a good sound system. I merely put the facts together and come to that inescapable conclusion. That's called logical deduction. Perhaps it is you who should consider a tuition refund. And to think, I was amazed at the abuse you were enduring here these last few postings. That's nothing to what they are dishing out over there. Wouldn't you be a lot happier forgetting these message boards and just listening to music instead?