Are separates on borrowed time?

[the record spot]

Ooh, no offense, but it's as if you're just regurgitating stuff you've been told rather than having as much of a genuine understanding of what you're talking about as some of the people who are disagreeing with you. I have next to no understanding either, but I don't try to hide that fact. But I am sure there's a lot more to it than just repeating "An active crossover is more accurate".

Indeed. Google is our friend. And Wikipedia. And...ooh...the internet in general. No offence, but when the best in the industry use a mix of actives and passives (Steve Hoffman, Barry Diament, Joe Gastwirt, etc) I reckon they know their stuff a little more. And of course, they can always be asked at their respective sites.

 

[bigblue235]

Of course i'm regurgitating stuff, who hasn't in this thread? stuff that i've read about active speakers, that you too can read if you want, though you mightn't believe it, or want to believe it, that'd be up to you.

I do believe it, having owned and heard several active speakers, i noticed the clarity of the sound from them, and i put that down to them being active, logically, as it tallies with the stuff i've read about actives.

Not everyone wants accuracy, but if you do, IMO and based on my understanding of what i've read and my experience, active speakers are the way to go, this is backed up by the fact that they're mainly used in recording studios where accuracy is the primary concern.

So, as i said before. An active version of the same passive speaker will IMO and given my understanding of the stuff i've read, distort less, assuming both speakers have sufficient amplification and are competently designed (like the ATCs), and less distortion means greater accuracy.

But some folk know why something sounds the way it does, not just that it does because they've read that it does.

Yes, an Active crossover may well be more accurate, but that's just one part of the speaker. Yes, the Active speakers you've heard may have had clarity, but that could be due to them having good parts all round, not just an Active crossover. I've heard good Actives too, but they didn't sound any different to good Passives.

As I said, I head a ribbon tweeter speaker that had a fantastically sweet treble. Logically, I thought it must be the tweeter. Then I heard a dome tweeter speaker that sounded even better.

And as for 'not wanting to believe', come on, we're back in the realms of silly speaker cable threads there, with believers and non-believers. I'm happy to buy anything that sounds good, be it passive or active. I'm just not a fan of a particular speaker crossover technology, I'm open minded.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Thanks, oldric_naubhoff. I suspect most of it will be beyond my level of understanding, but I'll have a looky!

So, it's possible that drive units can introduce as much distortion as the much-maligned passive crossover? I'm just curious as I'm always skeptical when people people put so much importance on one element of construction.

yup of course the right question to ask now is; where did the data regarding passive xover distortion came from? I guess this 1% is worst of the worst cases. a lot depends on xover components, but quality ones can be quite costly.

there's also other issue which active brigade fails to see (or wasn't told on the other forum). since moving coil drivers are a major contributor to THD can we do something about it? well, yes you can if you care to look outside moving coil drivers. for instance Quads ESL speakers (or ESL speakers in general) are particularly apt at it. this quotation comes from a recent Quad 2805 ESL speakers review on Stereophile:

"Fig.10 shows the spectrum of the ESL-2805's output while it reproduced a 1kHz sinewave at 86dB SPL at 1m. The only harmonics that can be seen are the second, at –72dB (0.025%); the third, at –76dB (0.015%); and the eighth, at –78dB. And while a subharmonic can be seen at 500Hz—as I said in my Richard C. Heyser Memorial Lecture to the Audio Engineering Society in October 2011 (footnote 1), panel speakers behave in a mathematically chaotic manner, which leads to the production of subharmonics—this lies at –70dB (0.03%). The Quad ESL-2805 is considerably more linear than many tube amplifiers!"

it's also worth noting that Quads use a lot of passive components inside in its signal delaying circuitry, so obviously those don't contribute as much to distorting of output signal as much as some would like us to believe.

a lot bigger issue for most multiway speakers is lack of time and phase coherence of the sound coming from different drives. that's why many passive speakers will sound muddied in comparison with active equivalent, simply because it'll be easier to maintain phase coherence with active xover. but that's not to say it can't be done with passives. for instance Monopulse and Vandersteen speakers prioritise time and phase coherence in outputted sound. this aspect is important because it maintains spacial integrity of the sound.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course i'm regurgitating stuff, who hasn't in this thread? stuff that i've read about active speakers, that you too can read if you want, though you mightn't believe it, or want to believe it, that'd be up to you.

I do believe it, having owned and heard several active speakers, i noticed the clarity of the sound from them, and i put that down to them being active, logically, as it tallies with the stuff i've read about actives.

Not everyone wants accuracy, but if you do, IMO and based on my understanding of what i've read and my experience, active speakers are the way to go, this is backed up by the fact that they're mainly used in recording studios where accuracy is the primary concern.

So, as i said before. An active version of the same passive speaker will IMO and given my understanding of the stuff i've read, distort less, assuming both speakers have sufficient amplification and are competently designed (like the ATCs), and less distortion means greater accuracy.

But some folk know why something sounds the way it does, not just that it does because they've read that it does.

Yes, an Active crossover may well be more accurate, but that's just one part of the speaker. Yes, the Active speakers you've heard may have had clarity, but that could be due to them having good parts all round, not just an Active crossover. I've heard good Actives too, but they didn't sound any different to good Passives.

As I said, I head a ribbon tweeter speaker that had a fantastically sweet treble. Logically, I thought it must be the tweeter. Then I heard a dome tweeter speaker that sounded even better.

And as for 'not wanting to believe', come on, we're back in the realms of silly speaker cable threads there, with believers and non-believers. I'm happy to buy anything that sounds good, be it passive or active. I'm just not a fan of a particular speaker crossover technology, I'm open minded.

What difference does it make? Once what one has read is correct

I'm open minded too, i loved my old passive Dynaudios and would rather them than all the actives i've had bar my current ones, which i much prefer.

I don't think all actives are better than passives, there's no such thing as better with hifi really, IMO, you like what you like, but if you take the meaning of hifi literally, high fidelity, then amongst other things, accuracy surely has to be very important? And well... I won't repeat myself...

 

[bigblue235]

Thanks again, oldric. My head is spinning somewhat, but it is very interesting reading!

What difference does it make? Once what one has read is correct

What difference does it make if you know what you're talking about? A fairly big one, I'd say. Otherwise you're just blindly trusting what someone else is telling you, and repeating it as fact.

I'm open minded too, i loved my old passive Dynaudios and would rather them than all the actives i've had bar my current ones, which i much prefer.

I don't think all actives are better than passives, there's no such thing as better with hifi really, IMO, you like what you like, but if you take the meaning of hifi literally, high fidelity, then amongst other things, accuracy surely has to be very important? And well... I won't repeat myself...

Yes, but (one last time!) accuracy, or the lack thereof, isn't just related to the crossover. If you think you can hear a difference in Active speakers, when you're comparing random Actives and Passives rather than the same model of speaker, then surely an Active crossover must make a massive difference. But, at most, it's claimed to be 1% distortion or whatever arbitrary figure was quoted.

There's lots of other things in the speaker which could cause 1% of influence to the sound. So, if you were to be able to identify a sonic signature with Actives, that would mean all the other components in said speakers would need to be totally transparent to enable you to do so. But they're not.

So you're just making (fairly logical) assumptions based on your own perceptions, but they're assumptions of the type that are frowned upon by people in certain quarters. Y'know, like when the mag test speaker cables or power cables, think they hear a difference and give a rating based on the reviewers' perceptions?

 

[steve_1979]

surely an Active crossover must make a massive difference. But, at most, it's claimed to be 1% distortion or whatever arbitrary figure was quoted.

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

Before anybody accuses me of just blindly quoting Ashley James and Martin Grinrod I'm not. I don't just automatically take their word to be the gospel truth. But if any of you were willing to put your magazines down and actually make the effort to read an academic book about real hifi engineering principles you would find that the things they say about amplifiers, speakers and crossovers stand up to scrutiny. They just try to explain well documented hifi engineering principles that have been known for many years.

All this stuff about actives being better isn't just made up stuff. Read a good book about hifi engineering for yourself if you don't believe me.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks again, oldric. My head is spinning somewhat, but it is very interesting reading!

What difference does it make? Once what one has read is correct

What difference does it make if you know what you're talking about? A fairly big one, I'd say. Otherwise you're just blindly trusting what someone else is telling you, and repeating it as fact.

I'm open minded too, i loved my old passive Dynaudios and would rather them than all the actives i've had bar my current ones, which i much prefer.

I don't think all actives are better than passives, there's no such thing as better with hifi really, IMO, you like what you like, but if you take the meaning of hifi literally, high fidelity, then amongst other things, accuracy surely has to be very important? And well... I won't repeat myself...

Yes, but (one last time!) accuracy, or the lack thereof, isn't just related to the crossover. If you think you can hear a difference in Active speakers, when you're comparing random Actives and Passives rather than the same model of speaker, then surely an Active crossover must make a massive difference. But, at most, it's claimed to be 1% distortion or whatever arbitrary figure was quoted.

There's lots of other things in the speaker which could cause 1% of influence to the sound. So, if you were to be able to identify a sonic signature with Actives, that would mean all the other components in said speakers would need to be totally transparent to enable you to do so. But they're not.

So you're just making (fairly logical) assumptions based on your own perceptions, but they're assumptions of the type that are frowned upon by people in certain quarters. Y'know, like when the mag test speaker cables or power cables, think they hear a difference and give a rating based on the reviewers' perceptions?

So who do you think knows what they are talking about that has had an input in this thread? Do you think that only those that bulid speakers should discuss them? And who do you assume is telling me things? Ash? I started this thread nearly a year ago before i'd ever even heard of HDD, i did so as i was curious as to why some of the guys here had ditched very good seperates systems for active speakers, i had read the many links provided by people that show the advantages of active speakers, are they all incorrect?

Did i say that only the crossover is important? I didn't say i could identify a sonic signature, i said the actives i heard had great clarity, some more than others, this perception tallies with their "alleged" lower distortion and the experiences of others, and their measured distortion in relation to passives that i'd read about.

What information are you aware of that lead you to state this as fact?

if you were to be able to identify a sonic signature with Actives, that would mean all the other components in said speakers would need to be totally transparent to enable you to do so. But they're not.

How can you make such a statement?

And yes, subjectivety is frowned upon on certain forums, because it's been used to talk nonsense and sell snake oil for years, but you don't seem to want to trust stuff you research so i guess that's all you have to go on. Good luck with that :O

 

[bigblue235]

So who do you think knows what they are talking about that has had an input in this thread? Do you think that only those that bulid speakers should discuss them? And who do you assume is telling me things? Ash? I started this thread nearly a year ago before i'd ever even heard of HDD, i did so as i was curious as to why some of the guys here had ditched very good seperates systems for active speakers, i had read the many links provided by people that show the advantages of active speakers, are they all incorrect?

Did i say that only the crossover is important? I didn't say i could identify a sonic signature, i said the actives i heard had great clarity, some more than others, this perception tallies with their "alleged" lower distortion and the experiences of others, and their measured distortion in relation to passives that i'd read about.

What information are you aware of that lead you to state this as fact?

if you were to be able to identify a sonic signature with Actives, that would mean all the other components in said speakers would need to be totally transparent to enable you to do so. But they're not.

How can you make such a statement?

And yes, subjectivety is frowned upon on certain forums, because it's been used to talk nonsense and sell snake oil for years, but you don't seem to want to trust stuff you research so i guess that's all you have to go on. Good luck with that :O

Sorry, fella, but I got very little different out of that compared to your other posts. You've made points that are explained in the text you quoted, there seems to be a couple of strawmen, and the last bit has me totally baffled. But well done on getting 'snake oil' in there!

No point going round and round. We've both made the same points multiple times, and I think people must be getting bored. You're either missing my point or I'm missing yours. A little of both, probably.

I seem to be becoming regarded as the anti-AVI, but that's cobblers so I'll bow out now. I don't like the way Ash preaches, but I've had a more positive experience by email, so I'd consider his stuff now. But people continually going on about distortion as if it's the only thing that matters is rapidly putting me off the bloody things!

 

[bigblue235]

But if any of you were willing to put your magazines down and actually make the effort to read an academic book about real hifi engineering principles you would find that the things they say about amplifiers, speakers and crossovers stand up to scrutiny. They just try to explain well documented hifi engineering principles that have been known for many years.

I think that's a bit patronising. Not to me, as I readily I admit I know nowt about this sort of stuff, but there's people here who seem to understand things rather well. But hey, if people don't agree with you, just speak down to them.

 

[Anonymous]

From another forum...

grindrod wrote:
There seem to be some posters that have real trouble accepting the claims made by Ashley I thought I would just post some facts since I actually made the measurements and did the analysis [AVI ADM9]:Regarding distortion in crossovers:[/b]I measured a typical 2 Way 2nd order LR crossover designed for a crossover frequency of 3.5kHz using a number of different inductors, using the drive units as loads at 10W the electrical harmonic distortion was typically 1% (-40db) for the iron cored inductor samples and 3% (-30dB)for the ferrite cored samples which was a suprise! Measurement frequencies were 1 octave either side of the crossover frequency. I did not use an aircored sample because it was highly resistive (0.8ohms) compared to the drive unit impedance which in itself introduces response anamolies of the order of 10% (-20db) which , since the drive unit signal is in error compared to the input in the passband of the filters,it can legitimately be called distortion. In practice response anomolies are measured with all the inductor types due to their resistance. (This is particularily noticable in 3 way designs where the lower crossover point requires large values of inductance)By contrast the active filters used in the ADM9s have distortion typically -96dB at the frequencies used above, this means that the active filters in the ADM9s are very much more than 1000 better than the passive crossover.The mid-band distortion of the ADM9 amplifiers is typically –96dB so even including the amplifier the distortion in the voltage received at the drive units will be better than 50dB lower than a perfect amplifier driving a passive crossover.Regarding damping factor:[/b]The amplifiers in the ADM9 are optimised for the loads that they see, the output impedance is typically 1mohm mid band, there are two short cables (9”) direct to the drive units.Now consider a typical passive system, firstly, in order to ensure the amplifier is stable into a wide range of loads it will have some form of output coupling, either a damped inductor or series resistor. Also the typical output imedance is much higher than the ADM9 amplifier since the ADM9 circuit produces an exceptionally low output impedance. Typically the amplifier alone may have an output impedance from 50mohms to 0.5ohms in some cases. Add to that the connector and cable losses, typically 50mohms for 3m of 2.5mm2 cable, and then the crossover losses which may typically be 0.3ohms at DC then the source impedance seen by the bass driver will typically be 0.4ohms to 0.9ohms compared to the couple of milliohms seen by the bass driver in the ADM9.An important point to make is that in the passive system from a decade either side of the crossover (i.e., 350Hz for the bass driver in the example above) the source impedance rises significantly as the crossover frequency is approached. It is a common mistake to visualise things happening close in around the crossover frequency but in practice things start happening at least a decade away!I hope this goes some way towards showing that the claims made, not just ADM9s but active speakers in general, are real and factual, correctly designed there are huge advantages in terms of drive unit control and distortion, all this is measurable and is not just ‘an opinion’I hope this helps in putting this one to bed!Martin

 

[John Duncan]

surely an Active crossover must make a massive difference. But, at most, it's claimed to be 1% distortion or whatever arbitrary figure was quoted.

An electronic crossover is just an op-amp and even the cheapest ones will only have about 0.001% distortion.

A passive crossover has 1% distortion at its best and this can rise to as much as 10% at high power.

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=886

Before anybody accuses me of just blindly quoting Ashley James and Martin Grinrod I'm not. I don't just automatically take their word to be the gospel truth. But if any of you were willing to put your magazines down and actually make the effort to read an academic book about real hifi engineering principles you would find that the things they say about amplifiers, speakers and crossovers stand up to scrutiny. They just try to explain well documented hifi engineering principles that have been known for many years.

All this stuff about actives being better isn't just made up stuff. Read a good book about hifi engineering for yourself if you don't believe me.

And there was me thinking that there is no such thing as better.

Remind me, Steve - is your system active or passive?

 

[matthewpiano]

It seems there are two camps that are unlikely to meet in the middle here and it is getting a bit pointless.

Personally, I can see elements of both sides' arguments. I am ready to accept that active speakers measure better, all things being equal. I am also well aware of the theoretical advantages of each drive unit being powered by its own dedicated and perfectly matched amplification. It may well be that, overall, active speakers are more accurate than most or even all passive systems.

However, hi-fi can only ever be accurate to the recording process. Accuracy to the original performance is too many steps away and impossible to achieve. Amongst other things it depends on the accuracy of the recording process itself.

I don't care about measurements or this ridiculous notion of accuracy that gets bandied about. I care about being able to enjoy the music in the best possible sound without feeling like every time I put on a less than perfect recording it is going to be impossible to focus on the music. I'm quite sure my system is horribly coloured in absolute terms, but with regards to enjoying the music it is amongst the best I have heard. For me that is all that matters but I'm not about to try and convince others to share my viewpoint. This is a personal thing and I think everyone has to respect the priorities of others.

 

[steve_1979]

Remind me, Steve - is your system active or passive?

As you already know, the Neutron 5 speakers are passive.

However, the Neutron '2.1 system' is a sort of active/passive/powered hybrid. The subwoofer is fully active. The speakers use a passive crossover but the amps that drive them are specially designed for the purpose so in reality they have more in common with powered speakers.

The reason that I bought them was because I only had a budget of £1000 to spend. I did consider getting some cheap active speakers (Dynaudio BM5A or secondhand ADM's). In the end though, I went for the N5 system because it has a subwoofer which I wanted for movies and gaming. With my limited budget I considered the subwoofer to be more important than the extra clarity that actives would have offered. The Neutrons are lovely sounding speakers anyway and IMO they're better than most of the cheap active speakers.

 

[bigboss]

I really don't get all the argument about "actives are better than passives" or vice versa. How does anyone know what's an "accurate reproduction of sound"? We all have our personal preferences to sound, which may not necessarily be accurate. It doesn't have to be. If you like a bit of sugar in your coffee, that's fine. I won't accuse you of "not being a true coffee connoisseur".

 

[steve_1979]

It seems there are two camps that are unlikely to meet in the middle here and it is getting a bit pointless.

Personally, I can see elements of both sides' arguments. I am ready to accept that active speakers measure better, all things being equal. I am also well aware of the theoretical advantages of each drive unit being powered by its own dedicated and perfectly matched amplification. It may well be that, overall, active speakers are more accurate than most or even all passive systems.

......

I'm quite sure my system is horribly coloured in absolute terms, but with regards to enjoying the music it is amongst the best I have heard. For me that is all that matters but I'm not about to try and convince others to share my viewpoint. This is a personal thing and I think everyone has to respect the priorities of others.

Good post. I agree.

We all have our personal preferences to sound, which may not necessarily be accurate. It doesn't have to be. If you like a bit of sugar in your coffee, that's fine. I won't accuse you of "not being a true coffee connoisseur".

I agree with this bit too. If someone likes a warm or bright sounding system then good for them. So long as they're enjoying the music that's what counts.

 

[steve_1979]

I think that's a bit patronising.

I apologize if that came across the wrong way, I wasn't being deliberately or intentionally patronising.

Like yourself, I too admit that my knowledge and understanding of these things is limited. I was just trying to explain that all of this stuff about active crossovers is real, it's well documented and has been well known for years. But you won't ever read about it in hifi magazines.

The reason that I used the phrase "make the effort" is because the science stuff can be quite heavy going. I know that I struggled to understand it all.

 

[Anonymous]

It seems there are two camps that are unlikely to meet in the middle here and it is getting a bit pointless.

Personally, I can see elements of both sides' arguments. I am ready to accept that active speakers measure better, all things being equal. I am also well aware of the theoretical advantages of each drive unit being powered by its own dedicated and perfectly matched amplification. It may well be that, overall, active speakers are more accurate than most or even all passive systems.

......

I'm quite sure my system is horribly coloured in absolute terms, but with regards to enjoying the music it is amongst the best I have heard. For me that is all that matters but I'm not about to try and convince others to share my viewpoint. This is a personal thing and I think everyone has to respect the priorities of others.

Good post. I agree.

We all have our personal preferences to sound, which may not necessarily be accurate. It doesn't have to be. If you like a bit of sugar in your coffee, that's fine. I won't accuse you of "not being a true coffee connoisseur".

I agree with this bit too. If someone likes a warm or bright sounding system then good for them. So long as they're enjoying the music that's what counts.

+1 Two great posts..

 

[Bodfish]

Are we there yet?

 

[CnoEvil]

Are we there yet?

Doubt it.

What I do know, is that if you don't know where your going, any road will get you there. :shifty:

 

[John Duncan]

Remind me, Steve - is your system active or passive?

As you already know, the Neutron 5 speakers are passive.

However, the Neutron '2.1 system' is a sort of active/passive/powered hybrid. The subwoofer is fully active. The speakers use a passive crossover but the amps that drive them are specially designed for the purpose so in reality they have more in common with powered speakers.

The reason that I bought them was because I only had a budget of £1000 to spend. I did consider getting some cheap active speakers (Dynaudio BM5A or secondhand ADM's). In the end though, I went for the N5 system because it has a subwoofer which I wanted for movies and gaming. With my limited budget I considered the subwoofer to be more important than the extra clarity that actives would have offered. The Neutrons are lovely sounding speakers anyway and IMO they're better than most of the cheap active speakers.

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

 

[steve_1979]

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

Yes.

 

[John Duncan]

So let me get this straight; a well-matched, well-sorted amp and passive speaker combination is 'better' (in your opinion) than *some* active speakers?

Yes.

Thanks.

 

[steve_1979]

In my experience, at the low budget end of the market a suitably powerful, well-sorted amp and good quality passive speaker combination can be just as good as cheap active speakers for the same price.

 

[the record spot]

Before anybody accuses me of just blindly quoting Ashley James and Martin Grinrod I'm not. I don't just automatically take their word to be the gospel truth. But if any of you were willing to put your magazines down and actually make the effort to read an academic book about real hifi engineering principles you would find that the things they say about amplifiers, speakers and crossovers stand up to scrutiny. They just try to explain well documented hifi engineering principles that have been known for many years.

Yes Steve, I'll spend five minutes reading an academic engineering book on the principles of amplifier design, electronic engineering and their impacts on passive v. active crossovers and the relative merits and demerits of each. Because of course, then it'll become clear. There's a reason why people go to Uni to learn about this stuff and spend several years learning it.

Like an earlier poster said, I don't really need to read all that, I just want to enjoy the end result. What comes out the speakers is what I'm interested in.

And this whole "actives accuracy" thing is being done to death now.

Max, the fact that the design theory says actives are the better way to go from that perspective, doesn't thereafter follow that every active speaker will be better than any other passive.

I listened to Yamaha's HS50, HS80, Genelec's range, or some of it, from £500 to £1200, some Pioneer DS7s and a few others over recent years. Some sounded excellent, Genelec in the main, others less so, some were too dry and clearly aimed at the recording studio (Yamaha HS50s really). The end result meant that while the Genelec's were seriously lusted after, the HS50s were more "meh" and comfortably caned by my stereo at the time (and now for that matter).

Really not as black and white as it's made out to be.

 

[Anonymous]

Before anybody accuses me of just blindly quoting Ashley James and Martin Grinrod I'm not. I don't just automatically take their word to be the gospel truth. But if any of you were willing to put your magazines down and actually make the effort to read an academic book about real hifi engineering principles you would find that the things they say about amplifiers, speakers and crossovers stand up to scrutiny. They just try to explain well documented hifi engineering principles that have been known for many years.

Yes Steve, I'll spend five minutes reading an academic engineering book on the principles of amplifier design, electronic engineering and their impacts on passive v. active crossovers and the relative merits and demerits of each. Because of course, then it'll become clear. There's a reason why people go to Uni to learn about this stuff and spend several years learning it.

Like an earlier poster said, I don't really need to read all that, I just want to enjoy the end result. What comes out the speakers is what I'm interested in.

And this whole "actives accuracy" thing is being done to death now.

Max, the fact that the design theory says actives are the better way to go from that perspective, doesn't thereafter follow that every active speaker will be better than any other passive.

I listened to Yamaha's HS50, HS80, Genelec's range, or some of it, from £500 to £1200, some Pioneer DS7s and a few others over recent years. Some sounded excellent, Genelec in the main, others less so, some were too dry and clearly aimed at the recording studio (Yamaha HS50s really). The end result meant that while the Genelec's were seriously lusted after, the HS50s were more "meh" and comfortably caned by my stereo at the time (and now for that matter).

Really not as black and white as it's made out to be.

Lord, give me strength

RS, I have never ever ever said that, why does everyone keep misrepresenting what i'm saying on this thread???

Please re read what i've said, i'm worn out from retyping it :roll: