Cats and Electrostatic Speakers
dg...@erols.com
I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
scratch post? Thanks.
Dave
HWhee18514
if you buy the quads (new ones) there should be no problem since there
is film which acts as a dust cover and also the metal mesh under the
covering fabric is earthed, so there should be no problem.
do buy the quads they are quite superb
regards howard
Alan Cowen
dg...@erols.com wrote in article
<5neuhl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
Dave
Doubtful, but I'm sure that Quad or Martin Logan would appreciate the
suggestion and perhaps include it as an option on their next models.
Alan Cowen (owner of 7 cats)
John Frykman
dg...@erols.com wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
> scratch post? Thanks.
I have Martin Logan SL 3's (2) and cats (4). The cats have not been
declawed as I don't believe in it.
The Martin Logan's, while not exactly "cat proof", are fairly
resistant to the things cats dream up to vex us. The stators are made
of a heavy guage perforated metal which are insulated with some kind
of epoxy coating. The same metal treatment is used as a speaker
grille to protect the woofers. There is very little the cats can do
to damage either themselves or the speakers.
HOWEVER, (as I discovered) the little b......'s can CLIMB them if
their claws are not kept short. Since the ML's are tall and not
terribly stable on their tripod spikes, they can be tipped over if
kitty climbs to the top. Cats can also puncture the electrostatic
element with their claws. Although this actually won't damage either
the cat or the element, since their is no way the cat can be grounded,
it will mar the pristine appearance of these very handsome speakers.
Again, keeping kitty's claws manicured will probably prevent this.
This is what I do and it seems to work quite well. So far, the ML's
and the kitty's are coexisting very well.
Satisfied ailero-audiophile, John Frykman
Rennco 3
I have a cat and ML CLS IIz's. No problems except you should vacuum
them often. (The speakers, not the cat).
-Vince (Ren...@aol.com)
Ian McArthur
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
No. ML use a thick insulating paint on the stator that should be cat
safe.
The operating voltage is 4000 - 5000 V DC with little amperage. I
ran into a pair with a crack in the paint & all you got was a very
mild static shock. Like a static shock from the front of a TV set.
The QUAD ESL 63 has a metal screen to keep cats at bay.
Ian McArthur
Prduct Manager
Audio Plus Services
US Distributor's YBA, Mordaunt-Short, JMlab, Cambridge Audio, Audiomeca,
An Human (formally known as DDR)
These both have metal extruded panels, front and back. if you animals
have claws that are that long, and that conductive, you do not have
cats. i dont know what you have, but they are not cats. The real
problem comes in if they come in contact with unplugged quads with
audio signal applied to speaker taps, or with the ML if they should be
able to get to the electronics. I would worry more about the speakers
and the effect animal dander would have on the panels of the
electrostatic speakers.
If you end up using either pair, please let me know which repels the
cats the best, as i am allergic and looking at some ML my self....
Bjxrn Aarseth
dg...@erols.com wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
> scratch post? Thanks.
I believe that at least the Quads are safe with cats. In pet shops
you can buy a spray with a smell cats just hate (I think we humans
can't smell it at all). My sister uses this to keep her cat off their
favorite furniture.
Bj=F8rn
BalloJ
Alan Cowen wrote:
> dg...@erols.com wrote in article
> <5neuhl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
>> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as
>> a scratch post? Thanks.
> Doubtful, but I'm sure that Quad or Martin Logan would appreciate the
> suggestion and perhaps include it as an option on their next models.
i doubt that the current available is going to hurt your cat but i do
know that my 2+2's develop enough of a charge to bring up the fur on
my cat from about 18" away
drjoe
Ian McArthur
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
tar...@michiana.org
Alan Cowen wrote:
> dg...@erols.com wrote in article
> <5neuhl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> > I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as
> > a scratch post? Thanks.
> Doubtful, but I'm sure that Quad or Martin Logan would appreciate the
> suggestion and perhaps include it as an option on their next models.
There is a way to make sure kittty never uses any kind of speaker for
a scratching post (other than de-clawing). Put on a disk of pink
noise, pause the cd player, and turn the volume up. When kitty walks
near the speakers, hit play, and the noise scares the hell out of
them. Kitty will stay a good 2ft away from those speakers at all
times. It ususally only takes one or two "Treatments" to convince
kitty to stay away. TR
John Frykman
With the regard to the Martin Logans, a correction is warranted:
They DO NOT have metal extruded panels--they are stamped metal
STATORS, which are perforated and coated with a thick epoxy coating.
The electrostatic membrane is about as thick as Saran Wrap, although a
little tougher.
There is less than 1/8" distance between this membrane and the
stators, and any cat worth the name will grow claws longer than this.
Kitty's claws must be kept clipped, or kitty can climb the stators and
puncture the membrane (more of a cosmentic issue than anything--holes
in the membrane have no appreciable effect on the sound, as long as
they aren't too large).
Once kitty has arrived at the top of the speaker, he won't know what
to do. He'll sit there for a time and then decide the easiest way to
get down is to jump. A heavy cat can tip these speakers over, causing
damage to the speakers, other furnishings, or cat, or all of the
above.
Martin Logan has documented cases where a male cat has sprayed the
speakers. The cat urine will seep into the enclosure where the
electronics are located and zap them to oblivion.
So, as far as the ML's are concerned, they are fairly cat resistant,
and the cat is unlikely to hurt itself. But they aren't cat proof!!!
John Frykman
Michael W Ibrahim
: dg...@erols.com wrote in article
: <5neuhl$1...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
: > I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
: > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as
: > a scratch post? Thanks.
I'm a cat owner/martin logan owner and I can say that my cats don't
find the metal grates a tempting scratching post at all. I am also
quite certain that if they did it wouldn't be harmful to the cats.
But from experience I can say that keeping the cats out of the room is
probably best for the speakers just due to the large amount of hair
they leave around. I needed to vacuum down the stators way too often
before I banned the cats from the listening room.
Michael Ibrahim
wa...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
James D. Mitchell
Just a quick note to this thread, nobody has mentioned male cats and
their propensity to 'mark' large, bulky items as their own. If you've
got one, you already know about the smell, but did you realize just
how corrosive the feline's mark can be?
Sitting in my basement are a pair of Apogee Duetta Sigs, utterly
ruined by our male cat. we were gone for 1 week, which was enough time
for his urine marks to destroy the ribbon tweeter, the woofer panel,
and mar the presswood base on both speakers.
Score:
Apogee 0
Feline $3200
Ouch!!!
Lou Anschuetz
Bjxrn Aarseth (bjorn....@nrk.no) wrote:
: dg...@erols.com wrote:
: > I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
: > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
: > scratch post? Thanks.
: I believe that at least the Quads are safe with cats. In pet shops
: you can buy a spray with a smell cats just hate (I think we humans
: can't smell it at all). My sister uses this to keep her cat off their
: favorite furniture.
Wow, hate to turn this into a cat discussion, but I tried everything
my vet could come up with nothing worked for more than a few hours
with my cat (now 19 years old). Seems he would get used to any of
these preparations after just a few hours and then not be troubled by
them again. Sense of smell still works though since he can smell cat
food cans coming in with the groceries :) -- --- STRESS is when your
gut says, "No way" and your mouth says, "Sure, no problem."
Lou Anschuetz, l...@zaphod.ece.cmu.edu
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Rodney Gold
dg...@erols.com wrote:
>I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
>chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
>scratch post? Thanks.
Dunno bout the cats , but my dog ruined a pair of Maggies for me , by
marking them as his territory a few times to often , destroyed the
aluminium wires on the panels .
Rodney Gold
"The nicest thing about banging your head on the wall is-
the feeling you get when you stop."
Dean Schreier
tar...@michiana.org wrote:
> There is a way to make sure kittty never uses any kind of speaker for
> a scratching post (other than de-clawing). Put on a disk of pink
> noise, pause the cd player, and turn the volume up. When kitty walks
> near the speakers, hit play, and the noise scares the hell out of
> them. Kitty will stay a good 2ft away from those speakers at all
> times. It ususally only takes one or two "Treatments" to convince
> kitty to stay away. TR
I don't have electrostatics, but your "treatment" method won't work
with my cat!!! Whenever I turn up the volume she jumps up on top the
speaker and sits there??? I think she likes the vibration of the
cabinet??? My cat already slipped and put a hole in one of my
tweeters...so I'm looking for any other solution that doesn't involve
"killing" my beloved pet, getting rid of her, or locking her up. She
is also in the habit of sleeping on the warm amplifier (I leave it
powered up).
Suggestions???
Dean
Alan Cowen
>John Frykman wrote in article <5nkiip$c...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>An Human (formally known as DDR) wrote:
>With the regard to the Martin Logans, a correction is warranted:
>Martin Logan has documented cases where a male cat has sprayed the
>speakers. The cat urine will seep into the enclosure where the
>electronics are located and zap them to oblivion.
Perhaps it would be worth ML or QUAD coming up with a good looking
(and = protective)speaker cover that can be removed when you want to
listen to = your system.=20 Alan Cowen
Michael R. Clements
dg...@erols.com wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
> scratch post? Thanks.
Any time your cat(s) go(es) near the speakers, spray him with a squirt
bottle full of water. It won't hurt him but he'll hate it and it'll
only take a couple of times before he figures it out (going near
speaker) = (getting squirted).
Mine are only 4 months old and they avoid the speakers. They don't
even hold a grudge against the squirter!
Mclaren70
Perhaps I am revealing my ignorance here, but I seem to remember
reading in Stereophile that it is possible to get electrostatic
speakers to arc. That being the case, perhaps some strategically
placed wire near the base of the speaker might work as a cat-be-gone
device.
Presumably one would have to know in advance whether or not the
speaker would deliver a knockout blow...
Colin McLaren
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Michael R. Clements wrote:
> dg...@erols.com wrote:
> > I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
> > scratch post? Thanks.
> Any time your cat(s) go(es) near the speakers, spray him with a squirt
> bottle full of water.
This is brilliant! Just priceless! Squirt water near or at an
Electrostatic speaker! Should you put NaCl in the water first to make
sure it is seriously conductive :)
Steve Zipser
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Duntech,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Donald P. Theune
dg...@erols.com wrote:
>I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
>chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
>scratch post? Thanks.
Maybe others have felt the way that I do but didn't say it. However,
if I owned electrostatics (I own a pair of Maggie MGIIIa's) and my cat
used them for a scratching post, if the animal didn't get
electrocuted, she'd wish she had when I was through with her. Don't
get me wrong, I'm not a violent person. But that would probably send
me over the top. (I don't need any hate mail from all of you cat
lovers.)
Surprisingly, (Thankfully) our cat has never even looked twice at the
Maggies. In fact she likes music alot and sits on my lap when I
listen.
Don Theune
Alex Sokoloff
>> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
>> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
>> scratch post? Thanks > Dave
>No. ML use a thick insulating paint on the stator that should be cat
>safe.
> The operating voltage is 4000 - 5000 V DC with little amperage. I
>ran into a pair with a crack in the paint & all you got was a very
>mild static shock. Like a static shock from the front of a TV set.
Don't know about the MLs or new Quads, but there's a wire somewhere in
the old Quads with enough voltage in it to stop your heart (I think it
runs between the block and the panel). So long as the speakers are
properly assembled with metal grilles, I doubt there's any way you can
be hurt by them. I've never heard of anyone being killed by their
ESLs, at any rate. But unplug those babies before you go taking them
apart. (Even when they're unplugged, there's enough voltage stored in
them for a while to give you a nasty shock if you touch the wrong
spot. One of the reason DIY quad repair didn't look like much fun to
me.
-Alex
K. W. Jeter
On 12 Jun 1997 19:45:54 GMT, g...@cc.bellcore.com (Jeff Tricarico)
wrote:
>And do you tell parents to teach their children not to suck their thumb
>by taking a megaphone and screaming in their ear when they do?
>Or maybe by smacking them upside the head as hard as they can?
>Same difference.
Hardly. Cats are much more intelligent than children, and learn many
times faster.
KWJ
Michael R. Clements
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> This is brilliant! Just priceless! Squirt water near or at an
> Electrostatic speaker! Should you put NaCl in the water first to make
> sure it is seriously conductive :)
Yes, I believe Steve is correct -- I hereby apologize for assuming the
original poster had any common sense.
Warning: either use distilled water (doesn't conduct electricity) or
make sure offending cat is not near the panels.
This reminds me of WD-40 cans which state "Intentionally concentrating
and inhaling the contents of this canister can be harmful or fatal".
Pretty soon, amplifiers will say, "inserting both speaker leads into
your rectum and turning on this amplifier can be harmful or fatal. .
."
Oh yeah -- and don't do that, either!
Alan Hsu
> > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as a
>
> Any time your cat(s) go(es) near the speakers, spray him with a squirt
> only take a couple of times before he figures it out (going near
> speaker) = (getting squirted).
>
> Mine are only 4 months old and they avoid the speakers. They don't
> even hold a grudge against the squirter!
I remember seeing a cat repellent called Poison Apple or something of
that sort. Maybe spray the stuff on your equipment (preferably with
the power cord disconnected) can keep your cat(s) away from them.
Alan
John Frykman
I am an avid ailerophile, but I must disagree with the statement about
cats' intelligence. They are really quite simple-minded.
If you want to train a cat (it can be done) you must first understand
that cats will only do what they believe is in their own self
interest. (Unlike dogs, which want to please the top dog--usually its
master).
You will find that cats respond to negative reinforcement only if they
can separate the "punishment" from the person inflicting it. If you
strike a cat, it will simply learn to hate and mistrust you. On the
other hand, if you squirt a cat or make loud noises when a cat is
doing something you don't want it to do, it will very quickly stop
doing it.
If you use a squirt bottle, a cat will stop its undesireable behavior as
soon as you reach for the bottle. You don't even have to squirt it
after a few times!
Cats also respond to positive reinforcement, like kitty snacks, but
this is primarily if you want a cat to, for instance, come when
called. It takes patience, but it does work.
Since this thread concerns cats and electrostats, the gentleman who
suggested the use of a squirt bottle to disuade a cat from approaching
his speakers was right on. You certainly can aim a squirt bottle in
such a manner that it won't hit the speaker! Steve Zipser shouldn't
have been so quick to attack this methodology--it works, and without
endangering the electrostats. Moreover, one or two squirts is all it
takes--then, just reach for the bottle and yell to get the cat's
attention.
I used this training method on all 4 of my cats (Bengals--a very
active and inquisitive Asian Leopard Cat/domestic hybrid) and none
will go near the speakers.
Gary Eickmeier/Susan Andrus
I don't know if this is the proper forum for this discussion, but I like
the instant feedback I get, so here goes.
The reason for a thread called "Accuracy" was to question the very
concept of accuracy associated with loudspeaker reproduction. To be
more specific, I am talking about the facsimile reproduction of audio
events, usually music recorded in enclosed spaces, using the auditory
perspective system called stereophonic sound, which also includes
surround sound. In the first installment in this discussion, on the
12th of May, I called your attention to a model for thinking about the
process which I dubbed the "accuracy" model. It used the metaphor of a
screen enclosure in the middle of a concert hall as a substitute for
your listening room. Please go back and read that posting, if you do
not remember it.
If that were a correct model for the recording/reproduction process,
it would have all of the earmarks of the "accuracy" school of
thought. It sees the speakers as simply relaying the sound that was
recorded to your ears, with, hopefully, nothing interfering with, or
changing, the accuracy of the recorded signal between the time it left
the speaker and the time it reached your ears. In this model, we make
the actual listening room as anechoic as possible to eliminate
reflections, we cast all of the sound from the speakers directly
toward your ears, and we assume that what we want at the listening
position is a single arrival with flat frequency and phase
response. We allow surround sound speakers, because we realize that
two channel is a limited system, and the "real thing" has a full
reverberant field in addition to the direct sound.
In any case, the playback system is seen as a giant window to another
acoustic space, as if you were sitting in an acoustically transparent
screen enclosure in the center of the concert hall. The front screen
"wall" is a metaphor for the front stereo speakers, and the side and
rear screen walls sub for the surround speakers. In this "accuracy"
model, we believe that if and when our microphones and speakers get
accurate enough, they will relay the sound to us as faithfully as the
screens in our imaginary room would relay the sound of the instruments
and the complete acoustic space to our ears.
But this seemingly unassailable model has one very big problem. It
sees the sound as having been recorded from the perspective of the
listener in the screen room in the "best seat in the house" in the
concert hall. But what has really happened with modern stereo
recordings is that we have dispatched the microphones up to the front
of the concert hall, very near to the instruments, to record sound
that is meant to be played back from entirely within our playback
room, not from outside an imaginary window. Very big difference.
Let's try that one more time. "Accuracy" of the recorded signal may not
be the correct way of thinking about the recording/reproduction process
in stereophonic reproduction, because the perspective of the microphones
is not the same as the final perspective we want to create at the
listening position. We also know that we don't want to listen in an
anechoic environment, because it would sound very unnatural (unless we
had very many surround speakers to make up for the absence of a real
acoustic space for playback). What we do in practice is place two or more
speakers at a distance from the listener to regain the proper
perspective, and play the sound back in a real room to simulate the
recording space. This puts us in the dubious position of denying the
accuracy model, without having a new model of the process to take its
place.
In the next installment, I would like to propose just such a model. It
will allow reflected sound to enter the equation, it will let the room
do what it will with the sound without concerning us greatly, such as
rolling off some of the high frequencies and building a reverberant
field, and it will be just as unassailable as the accuracy model, but
without the problems noted for that model! Please stay tuned.
Gary Eickmeier
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <5nplbf$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> je...@europa.com (K. W. Jeter) writes:
>Hardly. Cats are much more intelligent than children, and learn many
>times faster.
That's funny, I never had a cat walk up to me, say 'Daddy, you look
tired, go to bed' and then come back with a blanket to cover me up on
the couch.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <5nn92o$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> z...@netrunner.net writes:
>This is brilliant! Just priceless! Squirt water near or at an
>Electrostatic speaker! Should you put NaCl in the water first to make
>sure it is seriously conductive :)
I wouldn't say it's priceless, I'd say it's SCARY. Putting water near
a high-voltage system had a name for it when I worked at the power
company 25 years ago. The name was "suicide".
Now, we're not talking 440kV and 1000 amps here, but the charge stored
in an electrostatic is big enough to cause harm.
I'll have to agree with Zip's posting (noting that he was being
strongly sarcastic) here. KEEP WATER AWAY FROM YOUR ELECTROSTATICS!
And if you own some Stax Lambda Pro's, don't go out in the rain with
them, either!
Alan Cowen
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC78D6.BAF3B700
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alan Hsu wrote in article <5nqe66$l...@canyon.sr.hp.com>...
Michael R. Clements wrote:
>
> dg...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> > chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as =
a
> > scratch post? Thanks.
I remember seeing a cat repellent called Poison Apple or something of
that sort. Maybe spray the stuff on your equipment (preferably with
the power cord disconnected) can keep your cat(s) away from them.
Alan
It's called "Bitter Apple" and unless you have a problem with your
cats = 'licking' your speakers it's not going to work.. It's odorless
but = tastle like (yup -- bitter apples) Alan Cowen
Alan Cowen
dg...@erols.com wrote:
> I'm thinking about buying a pair of Quads or Martin Logans. Any
> chance of kitty getting electrocuted if he should use the speaker as
John Hamm
Alan Cowen wrote:
Since many audiophiles are intelligent enough to not have
destructive animals or if they do not allow those animals access to
their components wouldn't it be more reasonable for those who do to
provide the protection?
--
John Hamm Buy/Sell/Trade
Vinyl, CDs, R2R tapes, Equipment, Literature
Motorcycles (Suzuki GT-750 Water Buffalos)
http://www.sunflower.com/~jlhamm/main.htm
Paul Johnson
In article <5nqdq5$l...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Alex Sokoloff
<soko...@panix.com> writes
> but there's a wire somewhere in
>the old Quads with enough voltage in it to stop your heart (I think it
>runs between the block and the panel).
Its worth being precise over safety, so here goes. Apologies to
everyone that already knows this stuff.
Its not voltage that stops the heart (or does other damage for that
matter): its current. From an electrical point of view the human body
is a bag of salt water with a fairly low resistance. IIRC it takes
only a few milliamps across the chest to cause serious risk of cardiac
arrest. Under optimum conditions (wet hands grasping electrodes) this
can require a PD as low as 30 volts.
When looking at electrostatic speakers, what counts is not the voltage
but the short-circuit current. The impedance is going to be so high
that the human body is close to short-circuit in comparison anyway.
Simply saying "5,000 volts" does not carry any information about the
danger to life.
Paul.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------
Paul Johnson | You are lost in a maze of twisty
Email: Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk | little standards, all different.
paul.j...@gecm.com |
K. W. Jeter
Your detailed post merely substantiates my comment about cats beingg
more intelligent and learning faster than children. Many parents
would testify that it takes repeated applications with at least a
high-voltage cattle prod to get anywhere near the same results with a
small child.
KWJ
dg...@erols.com
> Since many audiophiles are intelligent enough to not have
> destructive animals or if they do not allow those animals access to
> their components wouldn't it be more reasonable for those who do to
> provide the protection?
>
You'd think, but it's a compromise that pet owners make. It's hard to
restrict them from the living room if that's where your gear is. A
listening room would be easier. Heavy vinyl covers, like for rock
speakers/amps, works.
Dave
James D.Mitchell
True, but how many children will cover you with dead mice while you sleep?
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch <j...@research.att.com> wrote in article
<5o3usv$k...@canyon.sr.hp.com>...
{snip!}
> That's funny, I never had a cat walk up to me, say 'Daddy, you look
> tired, go to bed' and then come back with a blanket to cover me up on
> the couch.
>
{snip}
Alan Cowen
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC7B0A.E337B6E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John Hamm wrote in article <5o3u00$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
Alan Cowen wrote:
> Perhaps it would be worth ML or QUAD coming up with a good looking
> (and =3D protective)speaker cover that can be removed when you want to
> listen to =3D your system.=3D20 Alan Cowen
Since many audiophiles are intelligent enough to not have
destructive animals or if they do not allow those animals access to
their components wouldn't it be more reasonable for those who do to
provide the protection?
--
John Hamm Buy/Sell/Trade
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest to a manufacturer any =
idea that provides them with a saleable product. Since many of these =
esoteric speakers cater to the whims of the buying public in wood finish =
options (for example) why not cater to the audiophile/catophile public =
too by offering other options such as dust covers. You can order a =
cover for a Steinway so why not for a Martin Logan?
Alan
------=_NextPart_000_01BC7B0A.E337B6E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P> </P>
<P> John Hamm<JLH...@LAWRENCE.KS.US> wrote in article=20
<5o3u00$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2>Alan Cowen wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Perhaps it would be worth ML or QUAD coming up with a good =
looking<BR>
> (and =3D protective)speaker cover that can be removed when you want =
to<BR>
> listen to =3D your system.=3D20 Alan Cowen<BR>
<BR>
Since many audiophiles are intelligent enough to not have<BR>
destructive animals or if they do not allow those animals access to<BR>
their components wouldn't it be more reasonable for those who do to<BR>
provide the protection?<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
John Hamm Buy/Sell/Trade</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3D2>I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest to a =
manufacturer any idea that provides them with a saleable product. Since =
many of=20
these esoteric speakers cater to the whims of the buying public in wood =
finish=20
options (for example) why not cater to the audiophile/catophile public =
too by=20
offering other options such as dust covers. You can order a cover for a =
Steinway so why not for a Martin Logan?</FONT>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Alan<BR>
</FONT></P>
</FONT>
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC7B0A.E337B6E0--
K. W. Jeter
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:44:21 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
and all-around grouch) wrote:
>That's funny, I never had a cat walk up to me, say 'Daddy, you look
>tired, go to bed' and then come back with a blanket to cover me up on
>the couch.
Yeah, and how often does a cat take the keys to the family car and
wrap it around a telephone pole? Other than Toonces, I mean.
KWJ
Greg Jumper
(Sorry for the non-audio content -- if this makes it through -- but
people should have the right information...)
In article <5o6fbo$p...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Paul Johnson
<Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> writes:
Its not voltage that stops the heart (or does other damage
for that matter): its current. From an electrical point of
view the human body is a bag of salt water with a fairly low
resistance. IIRC it takes only a few milliamps across the
chest to cause serious risk of cardiac arrest. Under
optimum conditions (wet hands grasping electrodes) this can
require a PD as low as 30 volts.
Exactly. I don't remember figures, but "medium" currents can actually
be more dangerous than large currents, since the former can send the
heart into fibrillation (and potentially cause great damage), while
the latter stop the heart cold (which can be restarted relatively
easily with appropriate medical equipment).
Regarding voltage vs. current, the coil in a car's ignition system can
"generate" up to 100,000 volts to operate the spark plugs; while
shocks from this system can be painful, they aren't generally
dangerous, since they have very little associated current. On the
other hand, the 12 volt car battery, under the "right" conditions, can
be quite dangerous, because it can provide substantial current.
Another example: I believe the electrostatic shocks one gets in dry
climates during the winter are associated with up to thousands of
volts; again, there is minimal current involved.
Greg
Daniel J. Weiss
> K. W. Jeter wrote:
> >
> > Hardly. Cats are much more intelligent than children, and learn many
> > times faster.
> >
Obviously the above statement is not true. Human infants, even right
out of the box (so to speak) are "more intelligent" than cats (though
one may argue the definition of intelligence ad infinitum).
John seemed to imply that cats are simple because they respond to
operant conditioning...I would disagree that that makes them
simple...obviously human infants and adults respond to operant
conditioning. Further, John confused negative reinforcement with
punishment. Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive
stimulus in order to INCREASE a behavior, not extinguish it.
Finally, I would add that if you want to really train your cat, I
would advise that you be very consistent in doling out your
punishment. This may be hard to do if you aren't around all the time
(and the kitties can climb while you are away). Perhaps cover them
during the time you aren't around and then be very consistent in
punishing while you are around.
dan
Daniel J. Weiss
The statement that cats are more intelligent and learn quicker than
children reflects a good deal of ignorance. Children learn an immense
amount at a staggering rate
Your statement that cats seem to be more easily conditioned is unfair
considering that there are a huge number of confounds associated with
your observation. Further, if they are conditioned more easily, does
that really mean they are smarter? The answer is no.
'Nuff said...it isn't worth the bandwidth arguing whether cats are
smarter than children...if there is some empirical evidence to support
your claim, why don't you share with the rest of us.
Robert Deutsch
CATS sounds just fine on electrostatic speakers. I prefer the
Original London Cast to the Broadway Cast.
Bob Deutsch
WSpohn4
How about a special high voltage model that would make sure that any
feline transgression was a truly one-time occurrence?
Bill S.,
Speaker (not cat) lover
THEMADKING
Try this insted of water:
String Confedy or Canned Confedy
most cats hate this stuff
Cider_Creek
Have had good luck in looping scotch tape and applying it on any
surface I want the cats to stay away from.. they tryly hate getting
scotch tape in their fur and learn quickly.
--
Bernard~ http://home.att.net/~bkingsley/net/ianet.html
Paul Johnson
In article <5p6dvt$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Cider_Creek
<cider...@hotmail.com> writes
>Have had good luck in looping scotch tape and applying it on any
>surface I want the cats to stay away from.. they tryly hate getting
>scotch tape in their fur and learn quickly.
Having seen the reaction of a cat that got scotch tape on it once, I
think that this is way over the top. The poor thing was absolutely
terrified.