cliveb wrote:
> Darren, could you explain how you got those waveforms? As far as I can
> see, they are screen shots from an audio editor, which presumably means
> that you recorded the output of the DAC to a WAV file via a soundcard.
>
> Is it possible that the obvious clipping we see in the
darrenyeats wrote:
>
> I have to check whether the [flac] part is really necessary, I added it
> in whilst fiddling, once I fixed the sox part I didn't try taking out
> the flac again! I'll report back if no-one else does.
Cut down version indeed works:
Code:
flc
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
> these days, but the problem is that many of the high-end "designers"
> don't have the skill and capabilities to actually program them, so they
> prefer "just connect some exotic external components and put
Julf wrote:
> And as I keep saying, having the headroom (given the word length of
> modern DSP architectures) is not hard.
Julf, I agree totally! Should never happen.
See
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?98661-Some-observations-about-the-Benchmark-DAC1/page2=
see post 13 and 18
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, for me the money shot is here:
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1990168=11
Darren, could you explain how you got those waveforms? As far as I can
see, they are screen shots from an audio editor, which presumably means
that you recorded the output of
Mnyb wrote:
> Funny enough i suspect a phone can best many DAC's in this regards as
> they seems to have some really cool DSP onboard (in fact i think my
> phone beats my first DAC in every other aspect as well ... )
Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
these
Mnyb wrote:
> Do you remeber our tread about "intersample overs" not many DAC
> especially older ones shave not acounted for this effect
Indeed, and yes, intersample peaks are an issue with older DACs, but I
would expect modern designs to deal with it - it is pretty easy to do,
after all.
Julf wrote:
> So you suspect your DAC hasn't been designed with enough headroom?
Do you remeber our tread about "intersample overs" not many DAC
especially older ones shave not acounted for this effect , which in turn
is an artefact of modern record producing .
DAC mfg is often hunting specs so
Mnyb wrote:
> Do you remeber our tread about "intersample overs" not many DAC
> especially older ones shave not acounted for this effect , which in turn
> is an artefact of modern record producing .
> DAC mfg is often hunting specs so even if some filters alows for gain
> adjustments in theri
Julf, I have a DAC1. Set up the right way anyway, it's still a good
DAC.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137152
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
darrenyeats's Profile:
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, I have a DAC1. Set up the right way anyway, it's still a good
> DAC.
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137152
I have to agree with the comments from Werner in that thread.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
Some recordings are very quiet others very loud. Sometimes I don't want
to listen at a loud volume. I tend to use 30-65 most of the time but I
occasionally need say 20-80. I don't want a physical preamp. Therefore I
expect my digital volume to be blameless. 80-90 is not a realistic use
case, far
Mnyb wrote:
> A guess 80-90 volume is ok for the best recordings ever made?
Pretty much, yes. So far I haven't come across a single recording going
beyond 90 dB or so.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
darrenyeats wrote:
> Thanks Clive.
>
> To summarise what members utgg has clarified for us, a Touch volume
> setting of 40 (~-30db) or higher will be bit perfect with 16 bit source.
> So in this respect at least, similar to earlier Squeezeboxes according
> to your link.
>
> That just leaves us
darrenyeats wrote:
> BTW I'd avoid above 90 in any event to give my DAC DSP headroom for
> upsampling/ASRC.
So you suspect your DAC hasn't been designed with enough headroom?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, for me the money shot is here:
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1990168=11
>
> It is far from a single cycle in the example given. It's a macro-effect
> easily seen even at whole-track scale. It also happens to be one of my
> favourite albums, not
Julf wrote:
> Indeed, and yes, intersample peaks are an issue with older DACs, but I
> would expect modern designs to deal with it - it is pretty easy to do,
> after all.
Yea but is it ? that would be something for audiorags to actually test ?
there are actually some old AES pappers on it on
Julf wrote:
> If they actually cared about real differences - but that would scare
> away advertisers. Remember it is the advertisers, not the subscribers,
> that pay for the audiorags.
>
>
>
> Indeed. And as I keep saying, having the headroom (given the word length
> of modern DSP
Mnyb wrote:
> Yea but is it ? that would be something for audiorags to actually test?
If they actually cared about real differences - but that would scare
away advertisers. Remember it is the advertisers, not the subscribers,
that pay for the audiorags.
> But imho stuff should have healthy
darrenyeats wrote:
> Thanks Mynb,
> If the aim is not to truncate, the first numbers I expect to pop out are
> binary roots of 65536 (i.e. powers of 2) e.g. 256, 512, ..., 16384,
> 32768. Their absence indicates that avoiding truncation was not a goal
> at all.
>
The table gain values of 2048
utgg wrote:
> The table gain values of 2048 and greater are all multiples of 256. That
> means if you multiply 16-bit data by the table values, the least
> significant 8 bits of the 32-bit result will be all zeros - so there is
> no truncation when the most significant 24 bits are fed to a
darrenyeats wrote:
> Can you remember where you read that?
Sorry, this goes back to 2005 or 2006. I have tried searching the forums
to find the threads that discussed the firmware updates in detail, but
without success. But I do distinctly remember seeing discussions about
how the volume
Thanks Clive.
To summarise what member utgg has clarified for us, a Touch volume
setting of 40 (~-30db) or higher will be bit perfect with 16 bit
source.
That just leaves us the problem of below Touch volume 39 or less.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
darrenyeats wrote:
> utgg, do you know where and how could one invoke this function?
> >
Code:
> >
> --provide hook for applets to modify the gain curve
> function overrideDefaultVolumeToGain(self, value)
> _defaultVolumeToGain = value
> end
>
utgg wrote:
> The table gain values of 2048 and greater are all multiples of 256.
I missed that. Probably because 256, 512 etc are missing below 2048! Why
on earth try to follow some notional curve when SOME of these were for
the taking?! We could have had some volume settings with
Thanks Mynb. I'm aware the 24th bit is a long way down but then with
30dB of digital attenuation it's nearer 18th bit in practice. I'd like
to either it, just to do it right. Audio nervosa perhaps but let's see
if I can rig up a variable way of doing this ... For me the point (as
for so many
darrenyeats wrote:
> Thanks Mynb,
> I didn't realise that Touch used Squeezeplay! That was an important bit
> of knowledge. Wondered where the Touch firmware was on github!
>
> If the aim is not to truncate, the first numbers I expect to pop out are
> binary roots of 65536 (i.e. powers of 2)
You can get the source code on github for squeezeplay
(controller,Touch,radio) .
There is a file Playback.lua .
There is 2 volume mappings in here . I dont read LUA so I cant really
figure which one is actually used but there are hundred discrete values
in "16 bit format" full volume is 65536 .
Mnyb wrote:
> You can get the source code on github for squeezeplay
> (controller,Touch,radio) .
>
> There is a file Playback.lua .
>
> There is 2 volume mappings in here . I dont read LUA so I cant really
> figure which one is actually used but there are hundred discrete values
> in "16 bit
darrenyeats wrote:
> Thanks Mynb. I'm aware the 24th bit is a long way down but then with
> 30dB of digital attenuation it's 18th bit in practice. I'd like to
> dither it, just to do it right. Audio nervosa perhaps but let's see if I
> can rig up a variable way of doing this ... For me the point
cliveb wrote:
> What are your sources? If they are native 24 bit, then fair enough.
> However, if they are mainly 16 bit from CD rips, then you really don't
> need to worry about dither. Many years ago the SB and TP firmwares were
> updated so that all digital attentuation steps down to about
cliveb wrote:
> What are your sources? If they are native 24 bit, then fair enough.
> However, if they are mainly 16 bit from CD rips, then you really don't
> need to worry about dither. Many years ago the SB and TP firmwares were
> updated so that all digital attentuation steps down to about
Mnyb wrote:
> It's a 24 bit volume control dithering may be academic in those cases
> may actually not be needed in practice .
> I don't think for example a SB3 or transporter has the horsepower to run
> a dither algorithm ,so yes I think I actually read years ago that it is
> undithered .
>
>
darrenyeats wrote:
> Mynb,
> Your comment stung me, I really thought otherwise and it's bothered me
> since.
>
> I think* I've managed to attenuate with dither, albeit in a fixed
> fashion, by doing this in convert.conf and setting the regular volume to
> 100.
>
> In convert.conf, set the "flc
Mnyb wrote:
> Ok but why ? Was it you that always had a constant upsamling going on or
> was it some other member . Or is t to defeat potential intersample overs
> ? I have for the last months tried to find out if I can produce any
> awerse of positive effect by not running the volume on the
jkeny wrote:
Oh, the fact that the Regen has been reported to improve every digital
audio device it was used with, escaped you? If it improves these devices
they must therefore not be transparent therefore broken according to
your statement. The obvious conclusion, based on your logic, is
jh901 wrote:
I
If seeing the forest for the trees by your account necessitates adhering
to Hydrogen Audio dogma, then I'll stick with the, er, sticks.
There is no such unique thing as Hydrogen Audio Dogma. By claiming
otherwise, you show your ignorance of the issue or at least
Archimago wrote:
Well Arny,
All I can say is, it looks like you dodged a bullet... Serinus didn't
call you a pathetic girly man. :-)
I have two sons that are probably about the same age as he, one with a
PhD in Cancer Research, and the other with a MBA and dual BS in
Environmental
arnyk wrote:
The poor guy grew up (if you can call it that) an irrational
subjectivist who lives in a multidimensional logic-tight box, what can I
say?
I'll bet money JH you can't possibly see that, something about seeing
the forest for the trees...
I blame my parents.
If seeing the
jh901 wrote:
I blame my parents.
If seeing the forest for the trees by your account necessitates adhering
to Hydrogen Audio dogma, then I'll stick with the, er, sticks.
As far as I know Jason's career writing about music has turned out ok.
Presumably, he's very happy.
Not to knock
arnyk wrote:
I've obviously, shall we say gently applied corporal punishment to
better men than he and that ain't just whistling Dixie!
I'm sure Jason's parents are pleased that you feel so strongly that your
adult children turned out to be better men than he. Perhaps you could
find out
jh901 wrote:
I'm sure Jason's parents are pleased that you feel so strongly that your
adult children turned out to be better men than he. Perhaps you could
find out where they went wrong and then let us know.
The poor guy grew up (if you can call it that) an irrational
subjectivist who
bonze wrote:
Oh dear, another that runs out of anything useful to say, so resorts to
personal insults.
At this point I think his *-tells-* seem to have painted a fairly
detailed picture of who he is.
He obviously knows very little about audio technology and is incapable
of forming and
arnyk wrote:
At this point I think his *-tells-* seem to have painted a fairly
detailed picture of who he is.
He obviously knows very little about audio technology and is incapable
of forming and expressing lucid word pictures about it.
He feels threatened by people who are more
Mnyb wrote:
You have not been on this forum that long have you seen his older treads
?.
My SB join date is public knowledge.
I bet that you know that this guy's name is Legion. (Biblical reference
for the post modern crowd)
You can just about rank audio forums by the percentage of people
arnyk wrote:
My SB join date is public knowledge.
I bet that you know that this guy's name is Legion. (Biblical reference
for the post modern crowd)
You can just about rank audio forums by the percentage of people who are
as out-of-touch and anti-science as he appears to be with
Mnyb wrote:
Just saying that his most silly stuff is couple of years back nothing
else, take my word for it it would be utter waste of anyone#8217;s time
to go back and read that . Agree about the rest .
Computer Audiophile is even worse than delusional I've seen some article
shilling a
Archimago wrote:
Well, when it comes to SBGK, I notice that he tends to disappear once
one confronts him with request for details on his testing method and
what he bases his conclusions on.
As for CA. Such an unfortunate state of affairs. I think in its early
days many of the topics were
Archimago wrote:
Notice the latest posting on AudioStream today?
A criticism of the common audiophile definitions of objectivist and
subjectivist was the opening shot in my HE2005 debate with Atkinson.
Hey, its only 10 years later and Atkinson's disciples are beginning to
understand my
Archimago wrote:
Hey there Arny, oh yeah that Atkinson exchange from a decade back. I
remember reading the 'writeup in Stereophile'
(http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/#l5EmtBLf2VFx0h18.97)
(Jason Victor Serinus, oi) and other audiophile places... I see it's on
YouTube. Will need
ralphpnj wrote:
Remember what I wrote about how written history and the actual events
often have little in common? I would watch the video and then read
Stereophile's write up with a very, very big grain of salt.
The audio recording is accurate.
Well Arny,
All I can say is, it looks like you dodged a bullet... Serinus didn't
call you a pathetic girly man. :-)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
A criticism of the common audiophile definitions of objectivist and
subjectivist was the opening shot in my HE2005 debate with Atkinson.
Hey, its only 10 years later and Atkinson's disciples are beginning to
understand my schtick!
I remember its current proprietor when
jkeny wrote:
What I suggest is that Archi friends don't close their mind to trying
different USB cables maybe different USB ports.\
jkeny why don't you show us how this open-minded thing is done by
opening your mind to objective tests and reliable subjective tests?
jkeny wrote:
I said any measurements that may emerge will be just another point of
argument for the objectionists (not proof) - we all know that!
It is well known that *-anything-* can be argued about, so criticizing
objective tests on the grounds that they will spur arguments is
obviously
SBGK wrote:
I changed the buffer sizes in my Touch and hear enhanced high
frequencies with smaller values and reduced high frequencies with larger
buffers, has anyone tried to measure this effect ? It should be possible
to measure frequency differences.
Why don't you run your own tests?
SBGK wrote:
thing is your understanding of physics is flawed, the theories don't
match reality. Unless you think that everyone who hears any differences
in digital playback is hearing things. Just like the global warming
theories haven't predicted the stall in global temperatures the
jkeny wrote:
What I suggest is that Archi friends don't close their mind to trying*
different USB cables* maybe different USB ports.
Very unlikely thats not how things work . If broken yes , There are old
post where Archimago measures and listen several USB cables . They dont
seem to
I changed the buffer sizes in my Touch and hear enhanced high
frequencies with smaller values and reduced high frequencies with larger
buffers, has anyone tried to measure this effect ? It should be possible
to measure frequency differences.
Touch optimisations
rgro wrote:
I'm mostly with you guys, but wouldn't it be interesting to have a
really well-educated audiophile priest or rabbi chime in here with some
balancing thoughts on the place of faith in human societies? It's not
all just one big high-functioning computer out thereor is it?
Archimago wrote:
Well, I'm no rabbi or priest, but I do think there is a place for -faith
in one's life-. And hopefully in doing so, a better society.
However, we do have to know the limits of faith. I see faith as giving
us motivation, inspiration, drive, dreams, sense of morality and
arnyk wrote:
Why don't you run your own tests?
You should know by now that those were his thorough tests.
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
Why don't you run your own tests?
You've said the following:
real science would be trying to come up with theories to match the
evidence rather than ridiculing the evidence.
can you back those brave words up with relevant action?
there is enough anecdotal evidence from
SBGK wrote:
there is enough anecdotal evidence from people round the planet who have
changed buffer sizes in asio, wasapi, alsa to be certain that there is
an effect.
Just like there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that unicorns
exist.
The question I had was can this be measured?
I'm mostly with you guys, but wouldn't it be interesting to have a
really well-educated audiophile priest or rabbi chime in here with some
balancing thoughts on the place of faith in human societies? It's not
all just one big high-functioning computer out thereor is it?
Rg
System
Gandhi wrote:
Wouldn't selling transparent stuff for a reasonable price be a very
strange scam?
Your transparency mantra is hilarious. I'm not sure how you convinced
yourself, but I can see where it is convenient for you. Note that when
I hit play that the reproduced sound is
jh901 wrote:
Your transparency mantra is hilarious. I'm not sure how you convinced
yourself, but I can see where it is convenient for you. Note that when
I hit play that the reproduced sound is extraordinary. None of the
gear is broken or otherwise deliberately designed with flaws. What
Gandhi wrote:
Very interesting! You always link to such high quality articles. How do
you even find them?
Thanks - but they seem to find me :)
I guess I am lucky in having some interesting friends who forward/post a
wide variety of stuff - but I have to use google (or duckduckgo,
actually),
Mnyb wrote:
I've heard a lot of youtube lectures on this topic . But i have not yet
bougth the book
http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/
Gaawd, for a minute I thought the link pointed to a book by Michael
Fremer! But now I feel better.
Best Regards,
Gandhi
not often
Julf wrote:
'were not wired to think scientifically'
(http://eatingacademy.com/personal/wired-think-scientifically-can-done)
I wonder about one thing. We invented the scientific principle 400 years
ago. (But perhaps the chinese actually invented it much earlier? They
were really good
Julf wrote:
We are not genetically equipped to think logically or scientifically;
such thinking is a very recent tool of our species that must be learned
and, with great effort, overwritten. Furthermore, its likely that we
are programmed to identify and replicate the behavior of others,
Mnyb wrote:
Yes I frequent sceptic websites to and are an active sceptic locally.
I was at the founding meeting of the Finnish association of sceptics
back in the day, but found them a bit too fanatical. I am a supporter of
CSI (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and do subscribe to the
Julf wrote:
'were not wired to think scientifically'
(http://eatingacademy.com/personal/wired-think-scientifically-can-done)
We are not genetically equipped to think logically or scientifically;
such thinking is a very recent tool of our species that must be learned
and, with great
jh901 wrote:
It makes more sense to you that any number of thousands of audiophiles
from Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, US, etc are brainwashed than
the far more obvious conclusion which is that you aren't interested in
understanding why the gear which I would likely buy reproduces
I've heard a lot of youtube lectures on this topic . But i have not yet
bougth the book
http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/
Yes I frequent sceptic websites to and are an active sceptic locally .
Quote from it:
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal,
Julf wrote:
'were not wired to think scientifically'
(http://eatingacademy.com/personal/wired-think-scientifically-can-done)
Very interesting! You always link to such high quality articles. How do
you even find them?
Best Regards,
Gandhi
not often enough well recorded and mastered cds
Mnyb wrote:
will[/B] believe in rubbish we are doomed to it by nature .
There is always faith and authority...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul
Mnyb wrote:
That you like the sound so much does not really imply that its
reproduced . I would count using vacuum tubes as flawed especially any
brand that's ever done a 300B amp like Cary, to use tube *is* to design
with flaws.
I think that what is going on with our science-hating
SBGK wrote:
there is enough anecdotal evidence from people round the planet who have
changed buffer sizes in asio, wasapi, alsa to be certain that there is
an effect.
I guess you didn't get the memo - anecdotal evidence is scientifically
speaking worthless.
Here are just a few ideas that
jh901 wrote:
Your transparency mantra is hilarious. I'm not sure how you convinced
yourself, but I can see where it is convenient for you. Note that when
I hit play that the reproduced sound is extraordinary. None of the
gear is broken or otherwise deliberately designed with flaws. What
arnyk wrote:
Exactly. The recent spate of posts from jkeny appear to be just a
trolling expedition.
The legendary troll is looking back at you in the mirror.
Your constant claim that genuine audiophiles are anti-science is
typical, meaningless rhetoric. This ploy isn't new. You may
jh901 wrote:
Your transparency mantra is hilarious.
Dismissing something this easy to prove scientifically is itself pretty
hilarious.
I've already told you about how some people have locked themselves in
logic tight boxes. It is so convenient to have an object lesson right
before us!
bonze wrote:
You should know by now that those were his thorough tests.
Ridicule is where it's at. Lord forbid Arny escape from Detroit for a
few days and listen to some actual household audiophile systems. Nah.
Cary Audio 306 SACD Pro | Cary Audio SLP-05 | Cary Audio SA-200.2 |
Focal
jh901 wrote:
It makes more sense to you that any number of thousands of audiophiles
from Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, US, etc are brainwashed than
the far more obvious conclusion which is that you aren't interested in
understanding why the gear which I would likely buy reproduces
ralphpnj wrote:
So gee how is that the Egyptians managed to build those pyramids? There
is an overwhelming bias in today's world that mankind lived in the dark
ages until Steve Jobs appeared on earth to save us mere mortals (I'm
exaggerating :)). Seriously there is a strong bias in favor of
Gandhi wrote:
So according to neurocognition scientists, humans get more intelligent
by the decade, because of our environment. This curve has a name, which
I have forgotten.
The Flynn effect? Unfortunately it seems to have reversed in the 1980's,
and average IQ has actually gone down since.
Julf wrote:
The Flynn effect? Unfortunately it seems to have reversed in the 1980's,
and average IQ has actually gone down since. This could partially be
explained by the fact that natural selection isn't working any more (or
doesn't select for intelligence) in a society where we aren't
Julf wrote:
I was at the founding meeting of the Finnish association of sceptics
back in the day, but found them a bit too fanatical. I am a supporter of
CSI (the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and do subscribe to the
Sceptical Inquirer.
Michael Shermer is a great writer and
Wombat wrote:
Linking to CA for the proof of anything is a joke.
Agreed (but you already knew that)
SBGK wrote:
Just like the global warming theories haven't predicted the stall in
global temperatures
Another zombie lie (lies that continue to persist in spike of debunked
over and
jh901 wrote:
Ridicule is where it's at.
It would appear that ridicule is all you've got.
Lord forbid Arny escape from Detroit for a few days and listen to some
actual household audiophile systems. Nah.
If you actually had something useful to say, you'd have said it by now.
Gandhi wrote:
We actually agree. Perhaps I was unclear. I'll try again.
Science is a method that has to be learned. In general people can
actually plan things and that must be one of our few advanteges on this
harsh earth. But some individuals have always been really good at that
they are
Gandhi wrote:
We actually agree. Perhaps I was unclear. I'll try again.
Science is a method that has to be learned. But in general people can
actually think and plan things like trials and that must be one of our
few advantages on this harsh earth. (That and language. And being able
to
ralphpnj wrote:
Another zombie lie (lies that continue to persist in spike of debunked
over and over and over)
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/pause-in-warming-debunked
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/
Gandhi wrote:
Ouch. I didn't even notice the climate myths. But in retrospect I
understand that I did just that, but on a subconscious level and would
actually have propagated that opinion, had anyone asked me today. My
mind was on audio, or at least I thought so.
Obviously very
The decline of IQ? I like this case study ;)
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Wombat's Profile:
Wombat wrote:
The decline of IQ? I like this case study ;)
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=U8rhIZJAdd0
The link does not appear to work, at least not for me - Windows
7/Firefox. Please check the link. Thanks!
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio
arnyk wrote:
It would appear that ridicule is all you've got.
If you actually had something useful to say, you'd have said it by now.
now now, play nicely. you don't want to be remembered as a bitter old
man.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK wrote:
now now, play nicely. you don't want to be remembered as a bitter old
man.
Oh dear, another that runs out of anything useful to say, so resorts to
personal insults.
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
Julf wrote:
Actually it seems that that has been articulated, by Florence Ambrose,
as Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't
understand it.
There is also Grey's law - Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
indistinguishable from malice and Morgan's Maxim
ralphpnj wrote:
The link does not appear to work, at least not for me - Windows
7/Firefox. Please check the link. Thanks!
I don't quite follow. They both link to Batman v Superman: Dawn of
Justice. Fits the bill. :-)
Best Regards,
Gandhi
not often enough well recorded and mastered cds *|*
1 - 100 of 517 matches
Mail list logo
