Threads that discuss science on av-SCIENCE-forum get deleted? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 12:51 PM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbc
Both the time domain waveform and the frequency domain Fourier series are equivalent ways of representing the same signal. Both are representations which allow study of the signal and both are "reality".
I would say that the time-domain and the Fourier transform together describe the waveform. Neither one describes the wave fully on its own.

BTW did you read this article? Pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ion/page1.html

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 12:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 463
Quote:
Well if the 0.1%, 1% and 10% are in terms of THD, you will hear the differences my friend...
Without knowing the spectral distribution of the distortion, the order if you will, maybe yes, maybe no. Masking effects occur if they're within a critical bandwidth.

Quote:
We'll it's time you self-proclaimed scientists offered proof as to why we cannot hear the differences, rather than the other way around.
A specific concern might elicit more than a general response that's needlessly ambiguous.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #93 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 12:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Here's an example I mentioned in the other thread - One of the mags did a review of the Cyrus 8x (or whatever the latest model # is) recently. Going by all the measurements they took, it should have rightfully sounded awful. But the reviewer went on to say that he really liked the sound and would recommend it to anyone. He could offer no more of an explanation, other than that he found the overall sound very pleasing and enjoyable. So there's your so-called scientific review there.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #94 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 12:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
If every player should sound the same, then why do I have to adjust my tone controls differently for each one I've owned? Also, I'm sure all of you science minded people appreciate Einstein. What do you make of the fact that he believed in "God"? (This question should in no way be taken as a representation of my own personal beliefs.)
Rammitinski is offline  
post #95 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 75
"Going by all the measurements they took, it should have rightfully sounded awful. But the reviewer went on to say that he really liked the sound and would recommend it to anyone."

Good observation. The stereophile measurements part of the review of my player basically said the same thing. They measured it to have jitter of 495 pico seconds. Pretty high and should make it sound bad according to some people. But they also say that it is fair to note that the review could find nothing sonicly wrong with it.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #96 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:27 PM
Member
 
johnElliott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
We'll it's time you self-proclaimed scientists offered proof as to why we cannot hear the differences, rather than the other way around.
My point is that you are indeed hearing differences, but it might be for a different reason than you think.

I can offer two theories of how you *can* hear differences.

1. It's in your head. I would say this is the leading contender. The placebo effect is real and documented, and the brain is processing the sounds. I'd say the brain is by far the most important piece of high-fidelity, but, the brain is so dynamic, changes every second, hence the fluid nature of hifi 'advances' and their interpretations. This theory fits the facts. It explains why you can't pass a DBT. It explains why all manner of devices can affect the sound. Shakti (sp?) stones, volume knobs, spdif vs coax, jitter, static discharges, vibration isolated electronics, oil capacitors, magnet wire, green markers, elevated speaker wires, directional wires, beefy power cords, etc. All of the anectodal stories here sound similar. This theory also explains why some think the sound for the same system is warm, some bright. And depending on our state of mind, a system can sound great one day and not so great the next.

2. The changes you are making are to your room, not your system. When you swap out that adcom amp for the arcam, you have changed the acoustics in your room. Maybe one amp is bigger physcially, maybe you put the old amp in a place where a comb filter effect was coming from.
johnElliott is offline  
post #97 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski
If every player should sound the same, then why do I have to adjust my tone controls differently for each one I've owned? Also, I'm sure all of you science minded people appreciate Einstein. What do you make of the fact that he believed in "God"? (This question should in no way be taken as a representation of my own personal beliefs.)

Firstly, it is a preposterous distortion that claims are made that every player sounds the same.

As to your use of tone controls, who knows. Maybe those players are euphonically designed, your taste changes, or bias is at work.

Yes, Einstein may have believed in a supernatural being. Does his belief proves the existence of such a being? After all, Einstein was a human being with no exemption from having biases or being gullible in some areas of life.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #98 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
machani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
My point is that you are indeed hearing differences, but it might be for a different reason than you think.

I can offer two theories of how you *can* hear differences.

1. It's in your head. I would say this is the leading contender. The placebo effect is real and documented, and the brain is processing the sounds.

2. The changes you are making are to your room, not your system. When you swap out that adcom amp for the arcam, you have changed the acoustics in your room. Maybe one amp is bigger physcially, maybe you put the old amp in a place where a comb filter effect was coming from.
On point #1, I am aware of the so-called psycho-acoustic effect, that is why when I make mods to my system, I look for an absolute clear change, and one for the better, before accepting the mod.

FWIW, I have a mid-fi system and am very budget concious, so price is not a motivating factor if particular mod works.

Some mods worked, others didn't. It requires a very good understanding of the way your system sounds, in order to make progress in modding.

On point #2, I have a tube amp. It's very easy to hear differences when switching tubes.

C N Machani
machani is offline  
post #99 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
[quote=MIkeDuke The stereophile measurements part of the review of my player basically said the same thing. They measured it to have jitter of 495 pico seconds. Pretty high and should make it sound bad according to some people. But they also say that it is fair to note that the review could find nothing sonicly wrong with it.[/QUOTE]


Yes, that number looks high by itself :) 495,000 femtoseconds sounds even more :D
But, is it audible?

Benjamin, Eric and Gannon, Benjamin ' Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality,' 105th AES Convention, 1998, Print 4826.

They demonstrated otherwise. Well into the nano second region for audibility, 100X -1000X greater is needed. So, I am not surprised with the reviewers comments.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #100 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Party's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
I'd say the brain is by far the most important piece of high-fidelity
Hey John, there is another part of me that I belive is the most important piece of high fidelity, but my wife won't let me talk about it in public. ;)

--------------------------------
Ron Party
Ron Party is offline  
post #101 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:49 PM
dbc
Member
 
dbc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiobomber
I would say that the time-domain and the Fourier transform together describe the waveform. Neither one describes the wave fully on its own.

BTW did you read this article? Pretty interesting stuff:
It is more the case that each representation of the signal highlights different aspects, making it easier for my small peanut-sized brain to understand. :p

As an example (alluded to in your 2nd linked article), frequency analysis makes it easier to understand non-linear distortions such as THD and IMD, but works better for static signals (waveforms repeating over and over). And time domain is the only way to understand transient, brief in time, events which are difficult to understand in the frequency domain. But make no mistake, each one fully describes the signal, and a Fourier transform to frequency domain (along with the inverse transform back to time domain) loses no information from the waveform.

Yes, an interesting article, and it reminds us that existing test instrumentation results do not necessary correlate with human experience. But with some more imaginative experimentation and engineering, there's no reason why we can't have more meaningful metrics in the future.
dbc is offline  
post #102 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani
And you self-proclaimed 'objectives' usually counter arguments about measured differences with something along the line of: "but these measured differences are below the threshold of perception by the human ear".

We'll it's time you self-proclaimed scientists offered proof as to why we cannot hear the differences, rather than the other way around.

Well, we have given plenty of references, explanations, proofs, etc, but the believers just shoot the messengers.

Yes, the human hearing is very limited, psycho-acoustics is nothing new, been around well over 100 years researching. Audio and acoustic science happens to know a lot about those limitations, one reason the reality of perceptual coding, but, the believers kill the messengers, rip out the pages of the research and throw away the cover thinking they have the real answers.
One can only do so much. There is a saying about the horse and water. It applies here as well.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #103 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiobomber
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Sagan. That's why I purchase gear based on extended home demos.
.

But even home demos can mislead, depending what one is after. A human is the test instrument and that instrument can be most unreliable at times and unknowing when that happens. If one is after a preference, that is hard to test. But, there are testable aspects that can be tested in an objective manner.
I prefer the objective aspects for some areas of the testing :D

As to listening, or not, that is not the other extreme but the need is based in existing data. I rather not reinvent the wheel but move on to other issues.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #104 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 463
Well again Rammitinski, you've provided no link for the Cyrus 8x. What I dug up at Stereophile, http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers...us/index4.html suggests nothing is amis other than the Cyrus folk have the output about 1 dB above CD standards. Therefore in a simple swap out with a player that does rigorously adhere to the CD standard it might be preferred simply because it's juiced up a bit. Like taking herbal products that have caffeine if you will. But based on that review, it doesn't seem like it should be distinguishable from say an Arcam or certain others in a level matched unsighted comparison.

Quote:
If every player should sound the same, then why do I have to adjust my tone controls differently for each one I've owned?
Who is saying they should sound the same? If you futz with the reconstruction filter and allow out of band back into the audio you can get audible artifacts. As examples of this consider the Wadia, Reiymo (sp?), and Qvortrup's AudioNote DAC where he left the GD thing off completely. Again, without knowing what players you had, whether you were listening to digital out or analog, etc. how does one even begin to answer this? Maybe you expected to hear a difference and then started futzing with the tone controls.
Quote:
Also, I'm sure all of you science minded people appreciate Einstein. What do you make of the fact that he believed in "God"?
Did he? As far as I know he was an atheist/agnostic and his references to God were not in the conventional sense. For example, consider the following quotes from dear Albert.
Quote:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
In his autobiographical notes he stated...
Quote:
"Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me..."
But there are scientists I'm sure that have quite the opposite view.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #105 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai

In his autobiographical notes he stated...

But there are scientists I'm sure that have quite the opposite view.

Thanks for the quotes about Einstein :D

Even if he did believe, that proves nothing about a supernatural being :D Why would Albert be immune from beliefs?? Really irrelevant to what audio science can demonstrate, or not. :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #106 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
[quote=whoaru99]I'm confident that if I witnessed a robbery taking place it really would not matter where these observations took place in order to be able to report them.

Well, we are all confident that we can do things. In reality, and specifically in that court room, performances have been somewhat different. You may know that something happened, perhaps, but, did you see the hair color, clothing color and pattern, scars, tattoos, you name it. Gross events, most likely, small details, most likely not. Hence the reliability issues. That is not me. Talk to some lawyers or other experts :D

Why would the same not hold true for observations in audio?

Bias, sub conscious expectations, you name it.
Why does science rely on DBT protocols?
CharlesJ is offline  
post #107 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
in a law court under cross exam you will be asked:

....
:D :D :D

And much more. :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #108 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
and for the participants in dbt (for differences not good or bad) the following questions:

:D :D :D

these questions not asked when sighted testing is used??? Why not??? :D
Golden ears know all these though so they comply well. ;)
CharlesJ is offline  
post #109 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Well, based on that I would admit I'm mistaken. But I had always heard he did. I'd like to read all of his quotes to find out what might have given the sources of my info that impression.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #110 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonds

Again it is a hobby!!....

And I thought hobbyists would let no stone unturned in their quest. Yet, as we can see, DBt is a disease to many to stay away from. :confused:
CharlesJ is offline  
post #111 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99
And you are 100% correct. The argument will never stop because regardless of how well controlled a test is, fault will always be found to discredit it regardless of the fact that those same testing methods are accepted for virtually all other disciplines. But here I sound like a broken record...

And, there is never a fault found in sighted comparisons. It is law :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #112 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
And much more. :D
Since when does a court verdict imply the absolute truth? And I don't talk to lawyers because very little of what they say or do is based on the truth. Too many of them are the scum of the Earth for helping people they are almost certain are guilty of heinous crimes walk free. I hope you can come up with a more respectable example than lawyers.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #113 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99
Yes, and it a court of law I better have the facts straight and ability to back my statement with more than anecdotal evidence or my testimony will be shredded by a good lawyer and totally discredited.

No different than it should be for claims of "night and day", or even "subtle" differences in audio.

But this audio is ONLY a hobby. :D :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #114 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
It IS only a hobby. It's YOU who are taking it more seriously.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #115 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Party's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901
Are we there yet?
Inching along. Not there yet. But make no mistake, "there" is 100 percent predictable to both the objectivists and subjectivists.

---------------------------------
Ron Party
Ron Party is offline  
post #116 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
[quote=Ron Party]Hey Chu, I completely agree, thus my repeated reference to religion. (As an aside, the intelligent design proponents probably would consider evolution to be a "pseudo science").

They consider evolution as ONLY a theory and not a fact :D
But, even the originator of ID has admitted in a court of law in that Pennsylvania case that in order for ID be a theory, the definition of a scientific theory must be change in which case, even astrology would be a scientific theory :D

There is an interesting on line link someplace about that case with all the court testimony available :D



With respect to your comment, however, to one who believes in the validity of DBTs, it is indeed necessary to do as you propose. It is, as you know, firstly the validity of DBTs and secondly the conclusions to be drawn from DBTs that the subjectivist questions.

---------------------------------
Ron Party


Do these subjectivists ever question the validity and conclusion of a sighted comparison? I think not, actually, I have never seen them do.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #117 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Well hell, if this "argument" hasn't been settled by now, then it probably will never be. Why is anyone keeping this going, anyway? (Other than the fact that it's very entertaining.)
Rammitinski is offline  
post #118 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 463
Well you can always check out your local library for his Autobiographical notes. It's not that Einstein didn't refer to God. He did and reasonably often but like anything else, one can take quotes completely out of context and in doing so, prove whatever point. Kind of like political snippets during election time!

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #119 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkeDuke
So experience is Nothing? .

Well, my experience is that water can bend steel pipes and that air can straighten them out. Perhaps my experiences are unreliable, or perhaps the perception is unreliable and misleading?

My other experience is with psychics talking to the dead. What am I to make of that experience?
CharlesJ is offline  
post #120 of 390 Old 02-23-2006, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditcho
Almost. Last unresolved issue is how science relates to emotion (if at all) :)

Oh, it does. Emotions are chemically driven in the brain through the senses.

It would be well and good if folks would just state that this x moves me emotionally more so that y. Not much to DBT :D Or, is there?

I guess my emotions are not as discriminating since it can be excited even by a car radio :D
CharlesJ is offline  
Closed Thread CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off