Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: "Keith G" <keith_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:16:33 -0000
"Jim Lesurf" <jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4df3ffd217jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <996dnTfAScbiSXnenZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>, Keith G
<keith_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" <jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4df34fd295jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't believe there is a single item of audio equipment on the
planet that *doesn't* alter the signal to some degree.
In principle, your belief may be well founded. :-)
Certainly until it can be demonstrably proved *not* to be the case.
Afraid not. The scientific method is not based on the notion that ideas
are
'true' until someone finds reason to decide they are 'false'. Thus what
you
suggest is plausible, but we have no way of checking *all* items, so have
no real way to decide.
Theoretically is is possible to check every single item if not easy, but
until I am *proved* wrong I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Anyway, it's of no importance to me, I *work with* what I've got and max and
match accordingly......
.
- References:
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Andy Evans
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Don Pearce
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Andy Evans
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Serge Auckland
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: John Phillips
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Andy Evans
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Keith G
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Keith G
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Keith G
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: One for the bottleheads
- Prev by Date: Re: One for the bottleheads
- Next by Date: Re: One for the bottleheads
- Previous by thread: Re: One for the bottleheads
- Next by thread: Re: One for the bottleheads
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|