Outlaw Audio home shop products hideout news support about
Page 43 of 45 < 1 2 41 42 43 44 45 >
Topic Options
#6442 - 01/10/07 07:22 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Laventura Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 195
Loc: Montréal,PQ
Arrrrr...captain!....she blows....

I read somewhere some fool....
Quote:
INTELLIGENCE:

There's been NO displays of intelligence in this thread, apart from my writings.
And the same fool kept pushing his dogma
Quote:
EVERY single message not from me, is a condemnation of all of those who believe in products that no one here has tried, and a blind condemnation of those products. And stupid condmenations at that. No sign of wit or originality in any of the condemnations I've seen of me or my audio observations. NO intelligent arguments were ever made to me or anyone else, to support those condemnations that you and the other members here attacked me and other believers with.
Take it outside Belt-Boy...
Obviously...no one here can attain your level of wits...
one might hear the same kind of logic reinforced in some pre-school...cooty debate...
_________________________
Outlaw 1070-Mirage M-290(main)+MCC(center)+Omnisat Micro(sides) nanosat(back)+ +PS12-90(sub)-Technics SL-5 turtable+Cambridge Audio 540P-HTPC - SamsungDTB-H260F HDTV tuner - Optoma HD 20 +100' Draper screen -lots of spaghetti and toys

Top
#6443 - 01/10/07 01:53 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
charlie Offline
Desperado

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 1176
Apparently the belt products are only noticeable via headphones so I guess I'm off the hook. Damn.

Also it seems a person gets "sloshed" on a couple ounces of Belted Bourbon - I assume that is with Belt product applied to it, since the modest quantities I imbibe have no such effect on me. The stupefying effects of Belt devices would explain a lot about this thread though.
_________________________
Charlie

Top
#6444 - 01/10/07 03:07 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Lonster Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 07/18/05
Posts: 72
Loc: Eureka CA.
Actually,
The only explanation that this thread needs is this:
delius is right, and everyone else on this forum (and MANY, MANY other forums) are wrong.
Period. End of discussion.
(Unless you want to listen to this [person] RE-emphasize, over and over and over again, how these things work, regardless of what WE think (or hear).
You have to be trained, through years of experience in special LISTENING techniques, to be able to actually experience these changes in sonic perception. ‘I believe that there has been a transformation in what I perceive I hear, so what I hear is sonically better than what you hear.’ Why delius?
You know what d? I don’t really care if what you think you hear is better than what I think I hear. I don’t care if you believe that your ears are better trained to hear the subtle ‘perceived’ improvements that you claim to be able to hear. I don’t care that you have paper L shapes hanging from all your equipment, special creams dripping from your components and rainbow foil sparkling around your room.
I enjoy my audio equipment, and the music that I listen to. I already perceive a great deal of enjoyment from them. I don’t want to, or need to, try all the things that YOU feel are essential to improve the perceived sound, because I am already very happy with what I hear.
Why does that make me a bad person? Why do you feel the need to disparage everyone on this forum because they don’t see things your way? Why delius? Why? Why do you have to be right and everyone else is wrong??? Why delius?
You keep harping on how we chastise others in this thread, even though we have not tried their clocks and foils, and yet you continue to do the same thing in a reverse manner. Why delius? Why?
Why is it so important to you, that we see things through your eyes (ears)? Why?
deluis, you are no different than us. We are all the same. You have your way of doing things and I have mine. Can’t you just let it go, and learn to love your fellow audio enthusiast because they also love audio, not despite that? Can’t you rejoice in the fact that we all love audio in our own different ways, and just be happy with that? Can’t you? Why not? What terrible thing happened to you that made you become such an audio enthusiast hater?
Delius, I am sorry for your anger and I am sorry for your rage. I am sorry for whatever it was that turned you into an internet forum trolling, audio enthusiast hating, belt driven son of an audio enthusiast, and I just hope that you can learn to live in peace with others who share the same passion for music, regardless of how they listen to it or how they perceive it.
Peace and Love my poor misunderstood friend,

Lonster
_________________________
Lonny
Vintage Audio and Vintage Bikes, both SOUND great!
QpS

Top
#6445 - 01/10/07 03:44 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
charlie Offline
Desperado

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 1176
It's just the same old science vs. non-science argument. You can't convince either side with arguments based on your side, as they don't share the same basic foundation.

Unless I see a falsifiable experiment given that doesn't involve cash outlay, it's not any science I'm interested in pursuing.
_________________________
Charlie

Top
#6446 - 01/10/07 03:49 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
charlie Offline
Desperado

Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 1176
Super D,

Explain how CLC works, in 200 words or less. I'll explain something as an example:

A loudspeaker transducer works by converting electrical input to pressure variations. This is usually accomplished by harnessing electromagnetizm to move an assembly that has the desired physical properties, but there are other designs.

See? Simple, basic. A common basis of understanding to build a discussion upon.

Go for it. Try not to fall in love with your own words and go over 200.
_________________________
Charlie

Top
#6447 - 01/11/07 03:00 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
delius Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally posted by Lonster:

The only explanation that this thread needs is this: delius is right, and everyone else on this forum (and MANY, MANY other forums) are wrong. Period.
Good start. Now get everyone else who's dared to argue with me to admit that, and I'll be more than glad to move on and let you continue listening to your crap systems and drinking yourselves into oblivion. Or is this supposed to be another one of your hil-arious attempts at "cleverness by sarcasm"? By which you would be implying that "majority opinions are always the correct ones". Surely as dumb as you appear, even you can't be that stupid as to make such an argument. Can you?

Quote:
End of discussion.
So why are you still here, troll?

Quote:
(Unless you want to listen to this [person] RE-emphasize, over and over and over again, how these things work, regardless of what WE think (or hear).
How is that any different from you idiots RE-emphasizing, over and over and over again, for months and months and months on end, that they don't work? No, don't answer that, Stumpy. That's one of those "rhetorical questions". The difference is this: I actually support my words, while those like you pull them out of your arses, and spew them all over the place, and never, ever make a single attempt to back up your endless reams of BS with verifiable facts. Claiming them to be "true" because they are "truth by common sense". ie. "Everyone knows clocks can't change sound perception! Everyone knows there's no such thing as 'invisible germs', ha!". Were it not so sad, your ignorance would be funny, Lonnie.

Quote:
You have to be trained, through years of experience in special LISTENING techniques, to be able to actually experience these changes in sonic perception.
First, "listening" doesn't require all capitals. It's not the name of a country, Pedro. Second, I don't agree with your blanket statement. I think you're partially right, in that the result of conducting listening trials will improve your ability to discern changes under the application of such trials. And the more you do, the better you get at this.

But what you dorky glue-sniffers always fail to realize is the role of the brain in the listening process; without it, your ears are pretty useless. But maybe if your brains are useless to begin with, that migh explain why it isn't important to you guys, and you keep focusing on the "ears" because that's the part you can see best? Case in point: I've conducted... oh, about a thousand more listening trials than you have (conservative estimate). And here's one of those rare opinions you might find on these forums, that are actually formed from the education of pertinent experience: I find that "noobs" (non audiophiles) are more likely to discern differences than seasoned audiophiles.

Why? Because they're blank pages. They don't approach these things with a million prejudices. They're too ignorant to be ignorant. They may have no more inkling of what a boson particle is than they do of capacitance, inductance or resistance. They have no idea what the DUT is, they're only asked whether they hear differences or no differences, and to describe them. When in describing the differences they identify the signature of the Belt phenom, then they've identified its effect. Interestingly, when they are told what the effect was produced by, then they are far more likely to say they're not sure if they heard anything.

Which brings us to you goons. The quasi-audio enthusiast. Usually identifiable as someone who spends more time hanging around discussion forums arguing audio theory than he does finding out what actually does and doesn't have an effect in audio, according to his personal capabilities. The internet Q-AE has already more or less made up his mind about whether the product or technique is effective. He has only to fully convince himself that it isn't, because he already believes it can't be. (Reverse placebo in effect). He puts all these barriers in the way of him ever hoping to hear any effect (witness the debacle of the Gonk trials, which he laughingly considered to be a scientific undertaking). The brain takes over and convinces the listener nothing was heard. But was nothing heard or was something heard, that wasn't perceived consciously? You never know because Q-AE's that have their minds mainly made up about these things, tend to draw inconclusive results.

I argue that "something was heard". Something is always heard, because I don't advocate products or techniques that I have not established beyond any shadow of doubt via exhaustive empirical methods, to be effective. And I'm someone who is actually qualified to say what is "effective", because my listening skills are far better than those of any audio dilletante. "How effective" is, as it is with everything in audio, relative to how successful you are at locking on to the product's sonic signature. Of course, that also depends on how effective the product is at producing one. ALL audio products that purport to improve sound have varying degrees of efficacity, relative to the listener again. Belt's and MD's are no different. People like Gonk are looking for magic bullets when they test these things, and I haven't found one yet in this business of specialist audio products. Nor have I found something that didn't work. If there is a unanimous opinion about products that don't work, formed from those who've actually tried it (most who decry such products never do), I'd like to know what that product is.


Quote:
"I believe that there has been a transformation in what I perceive I hear, so what I hear is sonically better than what you hear.' Why delius?
Why Delius indeed. On a scale of 1 to 10, how many monitors do you see in front of you right now, Lonestar? Given how drunk you sound, I can only presume you're preparing to listen to your hifi system. I'm sure this time it will surpass all your expectations. Well, to humour you anyway Slushie, the answer to your muddled question, assuming I've understood it correctly, the reason why that is, is twofold;

One, you've never experimented with the techniques or products I've described in this thread. Ergo, you have no point of reference, ergo, you're a babbling rummy with no clue as to what you're talking about. Once you do have those experiences, you'll at least be in a better position to actually ask such a question.

Two, the "transformation" in my perception comes from living in an environment full of products and techniques that work on the advanced principles I've described in this thread. Anyone who comes into this environment perceives the same fantastic sound, regardless of whether they are aware of what created it. That's because unlike your peculiar audio religion, it isn't based on a "belief system", its based on real phenomenon. And as to your last point, what I hear is sonically better than what you hear, for a few reasons. One is because unlike you, I'm not stone-dead-drunk when I'm hearing it. I don't have to get stoned or liquored up in order to enjoy my hifi system because it's actually good enough that I don't have to "pretend" its better than it really is, as you and most people here have admitted to me that you regularly have to do.

The other is because the changes that I have effected with these products or methods can not be duplicated by any other means. That includes you fiddling with equalizer knobs and the positions of the egg cartons on your back wall, until you're dead on the floor from exhaustion. There are no electrical devices that can create the same signature sound that Beltist devices, including the CLC, can. And that, in very short, is why what I hear is and always will be better than what you hear. The great thing about all this is, if you ever had the sense to try to prove me wrong, you might accidentally discover, despite your immense stupidity and incredible willpower to remain that way, that I was right all along. The bonus being you might improve your sound in ways you never could have imagined. I'm not saying that will happen, because I would bet the farm on you remaining willfully stupid. When a crowd of sheep gather around me like this, I can always tell which ones have a small chance of one day breaking from the flock. Sorry Lonnie, you're not one of them. Not by a long shot. But have another drink on me.

Quote:
You know what d? I don't really care if what you think you hear is better than what I think I hear.
Nor do I care if what you think I hear, is better than what I think you hear, if I think I hear you correctly when you say that you are hearing what I think you hear, and that you think I am not hearing what you think I hear. But that's neither here, nor hear.

Quote:
I don't care if you believe that your ears are better trained to hear the subtle "perceived' improvements that you claim to be able to hear.
I don't "believe it", any more than an olympic athelete training for 12 years "believes" that he can run the quarter mile better than your fat ass is capable of. It's a simple fact, Lonnie. If you don't like it, that's not my problem, is it.

Quote:
I don't care that you have paper L shapes hanging from all your equipment, special creams dripping from your components and rainbow foil sparkling around your room.
It might surprise you to learn that I have no L-shapes anywhere in my house. It's something that I leave to the "unwashed". It was interesting for 5 minutes. It's an interesting experiment, that is all. I also don't have special creams dripping from my components (no one does, as you only need to use like a micron of it.... shows what YOU know!...) and very little judicious use of the rainbow foils at my residence. There's more powerful ju-ju than RF's you know.

Quote:
I enjoy my audio equipment, and the music that I listen to. I already perceive a great deal of enjoyment from them. I don't want to, or need to, try all the things that YOU feel are essential to improve the perceived sound, because I am already very happy with what I hear.
Yes, I've actually heard that predictable response too, and at about the exact same time in the run, as well. So forgive me if I mistake your words for ringing in my ears. I'll tell you essentially the same thing that I told all the other cookie cutter people who told me the exact same thing you just did:

I'm happy for you and your happy happy stereo, and may you live happily ever after. But that's neither here nor there, is it. No one here is forcing you to listen to any standard better than slathered crap, are they? And that's a funny thing about standards, that I learned. Look at how many sheep, uh "people", are perfectly happy with their little iPods playing compressed mp3's on some plastifab "hi-tek" "docking station". Ever wonder why the micro-system took over the consumer hifi business? Is it because it sounds better than the "old skool" full size audio systems with the heavy amps? Are people "less happy" with their "perceived sound" now? If so, why are they opting for these smaller, cheaper, shittier micro systems in such record numbers, that the "real thing" is getting harder and harder to find?

Are you getting my point, Lambchops? Whilst you sit there with your clicker amidst your 10.1 speaker array and the digital HT receiver "console" with the 6,000 buttons on the front, and the subwoofer built into the seat of your comfy chair, keep in mind that your standard of "good sound" that "makes you happy" is purely a relative one. If you ever made it into the home of someone who had an extensively Belted environment, you'd start to have a clue as to what music reproduction is -supposed- to sound like. Live with it long enough, and your standard will change. Then your craptastic excuse for a hifi kit will no longer cut the mustard. Trust me when I say, there are "different levels of happy, and they don't sound anything alike". The sad thing about poorly perceived sound is, you can't miss what you never had.


Quote:
Why does that make me a bad person?
I don't know. Shouldn't you be asking this of your psychiatrist? Is he on vacation or something? I suppose I could fill the bill in a pinch, but you really should get with your reglar doctor, Lonnie. I don't think you're a bad person, Lonnie. I really don't. I just think you're a dumb and ignorant person. But you're also a bad person. That much is obvious. You're bad because you deride and mock people who are more knowledgeable than you, and understand things that you don't. And when they display infinite kindness by attempting to teach you of the things you are ignorant of and correct some of those nasty tendencies toward ignorance that you have, you behave like a whiny, petulant infant; pouting, shouting, and sticking pencils in your ear to show that in no way shape or form, are YOU, Baby Lonster, going to allow valuable knowledge about audio to get past the cotton balls and crayons you managed to shove in your brain. Especially from some weirdo who keeps calling you and your other whiny baby buddies, "dumbass sheep".

Quote:
Why do you feel the need to disparage everyone on this forum because they don't see things your way? Why delius? Why? Why do you have to be right and everyone else is wrong??? Why delius?
Again with the "y's". "WHY! WHY! WHY!". You must have been the most aggravating kid ever at nursery school. Perhaps you still are. Let me "why" you a bit....

A. Why did everyone on this forum feel the need to disparage me and HifiSoundGuy/GoodSound, because we don't see things your ignorant way? Why lonster? Why? Why, why? Why, why, y, why? WHY DAMMIT. Why? Hu-whuy?

A. Why do I have to be right and everyone else wrong? I don't. I just am. When I came here, I took out my white glove and slapped every one of you monkey goons in the face with it, challenging you to prove me wrong. Disappointing even me, not to mention your mama's, none of you sheep-bots have even come close to doing that. No one here in 3 thousand messages condemning me and others with the same views on audio ever tried ANY of the products that you have ridiculed and dismissed. That's one reason why I am right, and everyone else is wrong. Hundreds of customers and audio journalists who have tried these products also says that I'm right and the IM's in this forum are wrong. Dozens of friends and acquaintances I have demonstrated these products and techniques to also says I'm right and all you mind-loafers are wrong. And the fact that not one of you mental midgets even came close to coughing up anything that even looked like valid evidence for ANY of the arguments you made against me, says that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

Part 2 of Right & Wrong: Now the above establishes the fact that I am right and everyone else is wrong, on the subject of these advanced audio products. But it still doesn't quite explain why I have to be right, does it? Well that's simple. I respect the truth. I don't much like it when a loud, rowdy bunch of toothless, slack-jawed, beer-bellied, mullet-headed goons, who sound for all the world like they are clacking away on old salvaged PC's they managed to hook up in their trailer park, hold the truth up to ridicule, and bash it with their shoes like it was one of the cockroaches that permanently reside under their trailers. So I came here to represent the truth. And since you insisted on being rude and obnoxious to HFSG, well... I can do rude & obnoxious. Of course, no one here seems to like it when theyre on the receiving end of the crap they dish out. Funny, that. In a hypocritical sort of way.


Quote:
You keep harping on how we chastise others in this thread, even though we have not tried their clocks and foils, and yet you continue to do the same thing in a reverse manner. Why delius? Why?
Not true. Some of my most beloved audio products are Newtonian in nature. Looks like I'm still right and you and your drink-mates are still wrong. Sorry if the truth offends!


Quote:
Why is it so important to you, that we see things through your eyes (ears)?
Who said it was? Frankly, I could not care less if you do or don't. But thank you for asking instead of making the usual ignorant assumptions.

Quote:
Why? deluis, you are no different than us. We are all the same.
Sorry, wishful thinking on your part, but no we're not. There are some very profound differences between me and everyone else here, which are seen in the way that everyone here ridicules and dismisses ideas, techniques, theories and products they know nothing about and have never tried. I don't do that if there is any decent evidence that those products or techniques have a basis in reality. What do I consider "decent evidence"? Well, I'm not talking about the other original thinking idiot here who advocated stuffing pineapple under his arse to improve his sound. How about professional audio journalists from across the globe who've heard those products and reported that despite their initial skepticism, they've heard the changes made by Beltist products? That's as good a basis as any for me to say "I don't know if those products do or don't work, as I haven't tried them".

So far, I haven't seen a single one of you rude, obnoxious, arrogant pricks here saying that. Had I, it would probably be the most intelligent thing any one of you has ever said since I climbed aboard the Belt-Bash Express here. And therein lies the difference between me and everyone else here who isn't me. It's called "an open mind". It means a willingness to accept what is in all practical terms, real, and not be deluded into believing in that which isn't real, but appears to be "theoretically credible", at best. Those who behave like mindless sheep all their lives, playing "follow the leader", will maintain those closed minds and rigid belief systems that delude them every day. Those who don't, are some of the most advanced audiophiles on earth. You're looking at one of them. Don't like it that I'm a more advanced audiophile than you or anyone else here? Too bad! Deal with it in the usual ways you people do, with childish mockery, and by all means, don't surprise or challenge me. Or even say something to me that I haven't already heard someone just like you say before.


Quote:
You have your way of doing things and I have mine. Can't you just let it go, and learn to love your fellow audio enthusiast because they also love audio, not despite that?
I do love my fellow audio enthusiast. You're not one of them, btw. But OTOH, I can't say I have much love for stupid arrogant pig-headed haters who hurl derisive abuse for hundreds of messages on end towards those that also love audio, and wish to express their love for it. But sadly, it just happens to includes some audio products the pig-headed imbeciles don't "believe in". I also don't have much love for people who lie about me (as you have done), deliberately twist my words around and call me a "shill" simply because I wish to share my love for audio and audio products that not everyone is crazy about. I've never called someone a "shill" because they love Outlaw products. Even though that would be more fitting, the way those things are talked about around here. You know what? Even if I did, there doesn't seem to be any shame in "shilling" for Outlaw, around here. But say that you tried and liked a Machina Dynamica clock? You're instantly branded a "shill"! Defend said clock, and you're then branded a "troll".

In my entire life, I've never seen anything quite as stupid as a bunch of no-nothing lardheads telling me how rude and obnoxious I am, but at the same time, accusing me of "shilling" them. So threatened by the products I advocate, that even as they are offended by my approach to them, they are scared that I am such an effective "shill", I will somehow manage to catch them off their guard for a moment, and brainwash them into buying the products that they have spent so very much of their daily time and energy hating and bashing for the better part of a year. And you wonder why I keep laughing at the idea that you people think of yourselves as "intelligent"? laugh (By the way, I can get you a discount on a clock, if you're interested. But only if you don't tell anyone, as the others will get jealous. Just PM me. wink ).


Quote:
Can't you rejoice in the fact that we all love audio in our own different ways, and just be happy with that?
Of course I can. That's why I came, to "rejoice" with you all! I'm "rejoicing" in the same way that you "rejoiced" with HFSG/GoodSound for hundreds of messages through. You know, those member(s) who loved audio in their own different ways, and the ways in which the trailer park boys in this thread were "happy with that"? Should I go through the archives here to see how much "rejoicing" YOU did when HFSG/GS came on the scene?


Quote:
What terrible thing happened to you that made you become such an audio enthusiast hater?
Oh now you're not even pretending to make any sense, you silly mongoose. And you're slurring your words so badly that you're almost starting to become intelligible again. I can't possibly be an "audio enthusiast hater" since I -am- an "audio enthusiast". All I can guess is that in your drunken stupour, you might have confused yourself or your buds here for "audio enthusiasts". Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!! Very funny! No, you're not. Sorry, not even close. Audio dilletantes, and that's me being generous, and ignoring the fact that you wanna-be audiophiles are nothing more than HT freaks. Home theatre is like Yugo's answer to the Countache. But please, don't let me get in the way of your enjoyment with your digital surround sound processors! laugh !. I'm sure you tweaks are really attracting the babes with those things....

Lonster, I am sorry for your anger and I am sorry for your rage. I am sorry for whatever it was that turned you into an internet forum trolling, audio enthusiast hating, Newton-driven son of an audio enthusiast, and I just hope that you can learn to live in peace with others who share the same passion for music, regardless of how they listen to it or how they perceive it. Peace and Love my poor misunderstood friend,

Delius

Top
#6448 - 01/11/07 03:56 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
delius Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally posted by charlie:
Super D,

Explain how CLC works, in 200 words or less. I'll explain something as an example:

[b]A loudspeaker transducer works by converting electrical input to pressure variations. This is usually accomplished by harnessing electromagnetizm to move an assembly that has the desired physical properties, but there are other designs.


See? Simple, basic. A common basis of understanding to build a discussion upon.

Go for it.[/b]
Okay perfesser. Speaking of simple & basic, I've always wanted to know something: that "electromagnetizm" you speaketh of.... how does it work? Ya know... like... what causes EM forces? Sure, we know they're there but... what creates the energy? Why is the strength of an EM field what it is? Why does it decrease with the square of the distance from the charge? Why do the fields of multiple charges add the way they do? Or why is the field of a point charge radial? Oh. And in your treatise of how EM fields work, try not to fall in love with your own words and go over 200. Thanks, knew ya could! laugh

Top
#6449 - 01/11/07 08:27 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Laventura Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 195
Loc: Montréal,PQ
Wow!
Delius...
Where do you get that endless supply of hot air ?

Seems to me...you're on top of things as far as name calling, shilling or trolling goes...

but not so keen on justifying you're position...
or giving a laymen explanation on the supposed marvelous effects all your tweaks can have on audio gear...
you just go on and on and on...and on and on and on...
about how we're all a bunch of innocent pricks here...
HiFiSoundGuy, GoundSound, Goeff Kaitt and the Belt household are all poor little misunderstood victims of our derisions...
and YOU are so great...
Well...I'd sooner buy a
Willi Waller

the logic that prevents me from believing and using the services of a fortune teller, a card reader or an astrologer...and keeps me out of church on sunday....
is the same one that will keep me from sending cash or credit info...to internet scammers... like the wonderful people at Machina Dynamica...
Oh and please...refrain yourself...from comments on this one...
I did contact Goeff K. to inquire about his product...and I smelled a rat...

I truly despise lazy asses who abuse innocent people...scamming them out of their money...selling unscrupulous products under false pretenses...
I call them parasites...

And I can also do without the mind numbing effect and the bitterness...CLC's and Belt tweaks seem to have on their users...
_________________________
Outlaw 1070-Mirage M-290(main)+MCC(center)+Omnisat Micro(sides) nanosat(back)+ +PS12-90(sub)-Technics SL-5 turtable+Cambridge Audio 540P-HTPC - SamsungDTB-H260F HDTV tuner - Optoma HD 20 +100' Draper screen -lots of spaghetti and toys

Top
#6450 - 01/11/07 09:28 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
cvinfig Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally posted by delius:
Quote:
Originally posted by charlie:
[b] Super D,

Explain how CLC works, in 200 words or less. I'll explain something as an example:

[b]A loudspeaker transducer works by converting electrical input to pressure variations. This is usually accomplished by harnessing electromagnetizm to move an assembly that has the desired physical properties, but there are other designs.

See? Simple, basic. A common basis of understanding to build a discussion upon.

Go for it.[/b]
Okay perfesser. Speaking of simple & basic, I've always wanted to know something: that "electromagnetizm" you speaketh of.... how does it work? Ya know... like... what causes EM forces? Sure, we know they're there but... what creates the energy? Why is the strength of an EM field what it is? Why does it decrease with the square of the distance from the charge? Why do the fields of multiple charges add the way they do? Or why is the field of a point charge radial? Oh. And in your treatise of how EM fields work, try not to fall in love with your own words and go over 200. Thanks, knew ya could! laugh [/b]
Wow, I doubt even Chewbacca could handle that big of a red herring. Ignoratio elenchi.

Top
#6451 - 01/11/07 02:01 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
R. Mackey Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 41
Loc: L.A.
Quote:
Originally posted by delius:
Okay perfesser. Speaking of simple & basic, I've always wanted to know something: that "electromagnetizm" you speaketh of.... how does it work? Ya know... like... what causes EM forces? Sure, we know they're there but... what creates the energy? Why is the strength of an EM field what it is? Why does it decrease with the square of the distance from the charge? Why do the fields of multiple charges add the way they do? Or why is the field of a point charge radial? Oh. And in your treatise of how EM fields work, try not to fall in love with your own words and go over 200. Thanks, knew ya could! laugh
It's called Maxwell's equations, and it's quite simple. It's a natural consequence of the properties of a conservative field with the observation that there are (a) electric charges and (b) no magnetic charges. If you ask a specific question, I can give you a more concise answer.

Oh, I also understand quantum mechanics, in case you try to pull that canard.

By the way, I like how user gonk, who in his long tenure here has helped more listeners than you could ever hope to insult, actually tried your drek -- and you write 2900 words excoriating him for it. Nice.

I don't know about you, but I actually enjoy my system. Yours only seems to make you angry. I observe this with my own eyes, so obviously it's 100% real. Is that a side-effect of all that Belt nonsense, perhaps?

Top
Page 43 of 45 < 1 2 41 42 43 44 45 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 135 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
audio123, Dustin _69c10, Dain, REP, caffeinated
8717 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
The Wyrm 3
FAUguy 2
kiwiaudio 1
butchgo 1
Forum Stats
8,717 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,331 Topics
98,707 Posts

Most users ever online: 884 @ 11/01/24 01:32 AM