Computer controlled CD Changer?
Otter
collection. I am mostly interested in anything 200 disc and above, but info
for any size would be apreciated. Durring the course of using my 5 disc
changer and friends 100 disc changers, i have found the user interface
particularly frusturating. Finding any given song is a pain, let alone
programing a huge play list with the remote. A current part of my home
stereo setup is my PC, which, hooked up to my stereo provides a great way to
listen to both MP3s and CDs. Using my disk drive to play CDs automatically
looks up their track names and album info on free online databases. In
addition, using the computer, it is a snap to search for songs by tile or
any given criteria, or to make long involved playlists. Now for my
question: Are there any large capacity changers on the market that interface
with a PC (or even Mac)? If not, do you know of any plans of releasing a
product like this any time soon? Thanks for your help.
Adam
dave weil
Yes. The really expensive top-of-the-line Sony multi-changers do. The
year I bought mine (1998) only the $1100 top-of-the-line had the
interface. You got software bundled with it although I'm not sure of
its capabilities since I wasn't in the market for an $1100 200 CD
player. At the time, the next model up from mine, which cost about$600
vs. the $450 for mine, had a keyboard hookup for entering titles. Now,
that function has trickled down to the price point equivalent to my
model. So perhaps the interface has trickled down too. My suggestion
is to go to the Sony site, where you'll get all the skinny on the
different models.
Also, the Sony is top-notch in the ergonomics department. Very easy to
enter titles even using the shuttle ring. Programming is a snap and
accessing songs is a breeze. I suspect that if you have had problems,
it's with the Marantz slot-fed type, which is a royal pain in the ass.
Arny Krüger
"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38fdbf31.81876812@news...
> Also, the Sony is top-notch in the ergonomics department. Very
easy to
> enter titles even using the shuttle ring. Programming is a snap
and
> accessing songs is a breeze. I suspect that if you have had
problems,
> it's with the Marantz slot-fed type, which is a royal pain in the
ass.
One missing part of the equation: While hand-entering titles by
individually selecting characters using the shuttle ring seems
attractive to you, your correspondent has already one-upped you
tremendously with his PC arrangements - he doesn't hand-enter them
at all!
It seems like achieving this with CD appliances is doable, but it
also seems like it would be prohibitively expensive at this time.
The natural enemy of CD changers remains the cheap PC hard drive.
Figure 4 to 50 albums per gigabyte, at under $10 per gigabyte.
Peter M. O'Donnell
: collection. I am mostly interested in anything 200 disc and above, but info
: for any size would be apreciated. Durring the course of using my 5 disc
Sony's 200 / 300 disc changers are great. the DACs suck, natch, but
just use an outboard d/a.
: addition, using the computer, it is a snap to search for songs by tile or
: any given criteria, or to make long involved playlists. Now for my
: question: Are there any large capacity changers on the market that interface
: with a PC (or even Mac)? If not, do you know of any plans of releasing a
There's a company called nirvis that has everything you need. The
software /rocks/ and is free. They sell a box for $250 (i think) that lets
your pc talk to sony changers. HIGHLY RECCOMENDED, I use mine everyday. it
catalogs your collection for, using the cddb. check it out. www.nirvis.com
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter M. O'Donnell } pm...@email.com { "If you are going to
AU Student -- Unix Guru {=========================} walk on thin ice, you
"Clickity-Clickity" } 800-200-8643 { might as well dance!"
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:38fdbf31.81876812@news...
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:40:44 -0400, "Otter"
>> <adamfran...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Hello, I am looking for a large changer (or two) to hold my
>large CD
>> >collection. I am mostly interested in anything 200 disc and
>above, but info
>> >for any size would be apreciated. Durring the course of using my
>5 disc
>> >changer and friends 100 disc changers, i have found the user
>interface
>> >particularly frusturating. Finding any given song is a pain, let
>alone
>> >programing a huge play list with the remote. A current part of
>my home
>> >stereo setup is my PC, which, hooked up to my stereo provides a
>great way to
>> >listen to both MP3s and CDs. Using my disk drive to play CDs
>automatically
>> >looks up their track names and album info on free online
>databases. In
>> >addition, using the computer, it is a snap to search for songs by
>tile or
>> >any given criteria, or to make long involved playlists. Now for
>my
>> >question: Are there any large capacity changers on the market
>that interface
>> >with a PC (or even Mac)? If not, do you know of any plans of
>releasing a
>> >product like this any time soon? Thanks for your help.
>
>
>> Also, the Sony is top-notch in the ergonomics department. Very
>easy to
>> enter titles even using the shuttle ring. Programming is a snap
>and
>> accessing songs is a breeze. I suspect that if you have had
>problems,
>> it's with the Marantz slot-fed type, which is a royal pain in the
>ass.
>
>One missing part of the equation: While hand-entering titles by
>individually selecting characters using the shuttle ring seems
>attractive to you, your correspondent has already one-upped you
>tremendously with his PC arrangements - he doesn't hand-enter them
>at all!
What part of "*even* using the shuttle ring" do you not understand?
The point is that Sony's ergonomics is mostly superior to the other
options in players, a point that might be important in choosing
between the players.
>
>It seems like achieving this with CD appliances is doable, but it
>also seems like it would be prohibitively expensive at this time.
I've already noted that Sony has such an interface. A grand might be
prohibitively expensive to you (and to me) but maybe not to others. As
I said, I don't know what the interface currently does, but it seems
an easy thing to allow it to access on-line databases. If it doesn't
do it now, perhaps in two years it might be possible. After all, two
years ago, what you are accomplishing would be virtually impossible
without daisy-chaining a bunch of hard drives together. And how
expensive is *that?* And some discs already have the titles programmed
into the CD-text function. When I play one of those discs, I don't
have to do *anything.*
>
>The natural enemy of CD changers remains the cheap PC hard drive.
>Figure 4 to 50 albums per gigabyte, at under $10 per gigabyte.
Well, let's see. On the low end, we're talking $500 over and above
what you currently use to run your computer. Real cost effective,
especially since, if you are complying with copyright, your are
already spending at least a couple of grand on software.
A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And the
issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
Also, let's not forget the time involved in transferring all of those
CDs.
There's also the "pride of ownership" and the hard copy graphics to be
concerned about. To add graphics to your 200 CDs on your harddrive
requires even more memory. Yeah, it's an option. But you can say the
same thing about books. People still want to read words on paper
instead of scrolling through electronic pages. Maybe in 50 years it
will be different. But a lot of social conditioning will have to
change.
I don't see these two options as mutually exclusive like you
apparently do.
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:54:33 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38fdbf31.81876812@news...
> >> ...the Sony is top-notch in the ergonomics department. Very easy to
> >> enter titles even using the shuttle ring. Programming is a snap and
> >> accessing songs is a breeze. I suspect that if you have had problems,
> >> it's with the Marantz slot-fed type, which is a royal pain in the
> >ass.
> >One missing part of the equation: While hand-entering titles by
> >individually selecting characters using the shuttle ring seems
> >attractive to you, your correspondent has already one-upped you
> >tremendously with his PC arrangements - he doesn't hand-enter them
> >at all!
> What part of "*even* using the shuttle ring" do you not understand?
Let's see:
Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently using not
a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and rare
CD-text discs.
Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from codes
on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes (IME)
CD's going back to year one of CD availability.
I'll leave it to the reader for figure out which is easiser and takes less
time. ;-)
> The point is that Sony's ergonomics is mostly superior to the other
> options in players, a point that might be important in choosing
> between the players.
Really, Dave? Does that include *all* players, even those that reside on a
PC?
If I really want to index into songs and play them very precisely, and the
song is on a PC hard drive, I just use CoolEdit. It indexes down to the
individual 44.1 KHz sample, if I want to split things up that fine!
> >It seems like achieving this with CD appliances is doable, but it >also
seems like it would be prohibitively expensive at this time.
> I've already noted that Sony has such an interface.
Well, Dave if you are saying that the Sony interfaces to a CDDB database on
the web then I am surely impressed! But I've got my doubts that this is a
standard feature. I think that if they had it I would see Sony bragging
about at http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/home.
>A grand might be prohibitively expensive to you (and to me) but maybe not
to others.
A $grand is not prohibilitvely expensive to me if I think the cost/benefit
is right. Besides, if the Sony web site is right, the most expensive thing
they have lists for about $700 these days.
> As I said, I don't know what the interface currently does, but it seems
> an easy thing to allow it to access on-line databases.
Really? Just a little programming in C or Visual Basic, eh? ;-)
> If it doesn't
> do it now, perhaps in two years it might be possible. After all, two
> years ago, what you are accomplishing would be virtually impossible
> without daisy-chaining a bunch of hard drives together. And how
> expensive is *that?* And some discs already have the titles programmed
> into the CD-text function. When I play one of those discs, I don't
> have to do *anything.*
AFAIK CD-text is not going to help the vast majority of CD's in most
people's collections. Some new stuff, yes.
> >The natural enemy of CD changers remains the cheap PC hard drive.
> >Figure 4 to 50 albums per gigabyte, at under $10 per gigabyte.
> Well, let's see. On the low end, we're talking $500 over and above
> what you currently use to run your computer. Real cost effective,
> especially since, if you are complying with copyright, your are
> already spending at least a couple of grand on software.
If you own the CD then making a copy like this is legal. So, your "couple of
grand" would seem to be pretty questionable.
> A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And the
> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer, including
the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
> Also, let's not forget the time involved in transferring all of those
CDs.
Well, you can do that in 1/3 to 1/8 the real time it takes to play back the
CD, you can do it unattended except for physically loading the CD and
starting the process, and you can do it at the same time that you are using
the portion of your library that you have already loaded.
> There's also the "pride of ownership" and the hard copy graphics to be
> concerned about. To add graphics to your 200 CDs on your harddrive
> requires even more memory.
Dave, after you stored the music, you've still got the physical CD's, right?
There is your pride of ownership.
There is your stash of graphics.
Right where they have always been. Or, you can scan them into a document
database.
>Yeah, it's an option.
After we cut away the questionable claims, it comes down to which features
do you want.
If you want a sharable music base, then the computer jumps ahead.
If you want a music base that you can use to quickly burn "expendible"
CD-R's for portable use, the the computer at least holds its own, and jumps
ahead if you would like CD-R's that are drawn from different albums.
If you want to mix vinyl and CD in the same database then the computer jumps
ahead.
If you want to really archive your CD discs in a safe place, then the
computer jumps ahead.
If you want to download songs to a portable MP3 or MD player, then the
computer jumps ahead.
>But you can say the same thing about books. People still want to read
words on paper
> instead of scrolling through electronic pages.
Unh Dave, this is listening, not reading. No scrolling is needed to listen
to songs.
> Maybe in 50 years it will be different.
Or maybe in 3 years or maybe in 3 days, or maybe 2 years ago.
> But a lot of social conditioning will have to change.
Depends who you are. I run into people all the time that are building music
libraries on PC hard drives, and have been doing so for months and years.
> I don't see these two options as mutually exclusive like you apparently
do.
I never said that they were mutually exclusive. After all, after you load
the CD's into the PC, you still have them just like you did before.
Therefore you can put your discs into any kind of CD player, even a
changer.
dave weil
wrote:
To answer my question, I guess "all of it."
>
>> The point is that Sony's ergonomics is mostly superior to the other
>> options in players, a point that might be important in choosing
>> between the players.
>
>Really, Dave? Does that include *all* players, even those that reside on a
>PC?
Since you can now enter and edit song titles on a keyboard with the
newer Sonys, I guess your changing the point from my original
"ergonomics" comparison with other CD players is pretty moot. But you
missed the entire point in the first place anyway.
>
>If I really want to index into songs and play them very precisely, and the
>song is on a PC hard drive, I just use CoolEdit. It indexes down to the
>individual 44.1 KHz sample, if I want to split things up that fine!
Considering your propensity for nit-picking I wouldn't doubt that you
would do that.
>
>> >It seems like achieving this with CD appliances is doable, but it >also
>seems like it would be prohibitively expensive at this time.
>
>> I've already noted that Sony has such an interface.
>
>Well, Dave if you are saying that the Sony interfaces to a CDDB database on
>the web then I am surely impressed! But I've got my doubts that this is a
>standard feature. I think that if they had it I would see Sony bragging
>about at http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/home.
The Sony interfaces with the computer. I'm on record as saying that I
don't know in what fashion the interface works.
and are you suggesting that it would be difficult to do a software
change that would allow that should Sony see a need for it (I guess
you are later in the post.)
>
>>A grand might be prohibitively expensive to you (and to me) but maybe not
>to others.
>
>A $grand is not prohibilitvely expensive to me if I think the cost/benefit
>is right. Besides, if the Sony web site is right, the most expensive thing
>they have lists for about $700 these days.
Funny, it didn't take very long for you to get *this* price
information.
And actually they have a nice changer that plays DVDs also for close
to a grand.
>
>> As I said, I don't know what the interface currently does, but it seems
>> an easy thing to allow it to access on-line databases.
>
>Really? Just a little programming in C or Visual Basic, eh? ;-)
I'm sure that it would be a difficult thing for a company like Sony to
do ;-)
>
>> If it doesn't
>> do it now, perhaps in two years it might be possible. After all, two
>> years ago, what you are accomplishing would be virtually impossible
>> without daisy-chaining a bunch of hard drives together. And how
>> expensive is *that?* And some discs already have the titles programmed
>> into the CD-text function. When I play one of those discs, I don't
>> have to do *anything.*
>
>AFAIK CD-text is not going to help the vast majority of CD's in most
>people's collections. Some new stuff, yes.
CD's what exactly <g>.
And BTW, how long does it take you to burn 200 CDs? It takes me about
30 minutes to load that many CDs into a player.
>
>> >The natural enemy of CD changers remains the cheap PC hard drive.
>> >Figure 4 to 50 albums per gigabyte, at under $10 per gigabyte.
>
>> Well, let's see. On the low end, we're talking $500 over and above
>> what you currently use to run your computer. Real cost effective,
>> especially since, if you are complying with copyright, your are
>> already spending at least a couple of grand on software.
>
>If you own the CD then making a copy like this is legal. So, your "couple of
>grand" would seem to be pretty questionable.
Well then, how much is your time worth? You seem to value it quite
highly when it comes to figuring out how much you have spent on your
web site.
>
>> A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And the
>> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
>
>Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer, including
>the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
and the disc was just fine.
The possibility of a turntable type CD player damaging a disc is, say,
about that of being struck by lightning <g>. But then again, you're
probably used to those old Pioneer cartridges that *did* indeed damage
discs.
>
>> Also, let's not forget the time involved in transferring all of those
>CDs.
>
>Well, you can do that in 1/3 to 1/8 the real time it takes to play back the
>CD, you can do it unattended except for physically loading the CD and
>starting the process, and you can do it at the same time that you are using
>the portion of your library that you have already loaded.
Well let's run the numbers. Using my CD player and an average CD time
of, say 45 minutes, even the best case scenario makes it close to 24
hours of continuous burning, especially when you factor in actually
getting the discs, loading it, editing the info, etc. Worse case, you
can double the time.
You can figure on a couple of hours of loading titles to add to the 20
mintes of so it takes to load 200 CDs into a changer.
>
>> There's also the "pride of ownership" and the hard copy graphics to be
>> concerned about. To add graphics to your 200 CDs on your harddrive
>> requires even more memory.
>
>Dave, after you stored the music, you've still got the physical CD's, right?
>
>There is your pride of ownership.
>
>There is your stash of graphics.
>
>Right where they have always been. Or, you can scan them into a document
>database.
I was assuming that you'd want to maximize your computer's potential
to access graphics. I guess that's not a consideration for you though.
>
>>Yeah, it's an option.
>
>After we cut away the questionable claims, it comes down to which features
>do you want.
And which questionable claims are those?
>
>If you want a sharable music base, then the computer jumps ahead.
>
>If you want a music base that you can use to quickly burn "expendible"
>CD-R's for portable use, the the computer at least holds its own, and jumps
>ahead if you would like CD-R's that are drawn from different albums.
>
>If you want to mix vinyl and CD in the same database then the computer jumps
>ahead.
Why? My turntable sits right next to my CD player <g>.
>
>If you want to really archive your CD discs in a safe place, then the
>computer jumps ahead.
Obviously not *totally* safe. Now add backing up the data regularly if
you *really* want to be safe. And periodically having to upgrade your
computer and your storage media to keep up with the backwards
incompatablility that seems to be built into computers these days.
Hell, a hard drive that I bought only 4 years ago doesn't seem to be
compatable with my current computer. At least the techs can't get it
to install. I sure would have liked to have used it as a backup drive.
What happens 10 years from now with your current storage medium? How
many times do you think you'll have to tinker with it. To be fair,
there is the issue of computer laser availability 10 years from now
too when the laser eventually fils on the "physical" CD changer.
>
>If you want to download songs to a portable MP3 or MD player, then the
>computer jumps ahead.
All good points for using it.
Now factor in the average person's home setup. The computer is usually
in another room. That means you have to run cables to the other room.
that means that you generally can't access your computer while sitting
in your main listening room (unless the computer is already there.)
Some folks might want to have a terminal there (or use a laptop,) but
many will take the path of least resistance. That means listening to
the material on the computer's system itself. That's fine and dandy
for personal listening. But without elaborate setups, most folks won't
really be able to use the system to its maximum.
Unlike you, I think that both systems can coexist. I see certain
advantages for both (transportability for the "physical" CD player not
the least.)
>
>>But you can say the same thing about books. People still want to read
>words on paper
>> instead of scrolling through electronic pages.
>
>Unh Dave, this is listening, not reading. No scrolling is needed to listen
>to songs.
No, just fairly elaborate setups to listen to music in their listening
rooms. Time spent in conversion. Lots of incidental steps in the
listening process.
Of course you miss the analogy. Why am I not surprised?
>
>> Maybe in 50 years it will be different.
>
>Or maybe in 3 years or maybe in 3 days, or maybe 2 years ago.
>
>> But a lot of social conditioning will have to change.
>
>Depends who you are. I run into people all the time that are building music
>libraries on PC hard drives, and have been doing so for months and years.
Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. But I'll bet you know a
lot more people who do it the old fashioned way because "it's easier."
And there's nothing wrong with that too. A combination of both methods
is probably the best solution. I'll bet even *you* use a CD player
when it's convenient.
>
>
>> I don't see these two options as mutually exclusive like you apparently
>do.
>
>I never said that they were mutually exclusive. After all, after you load
>the CD's into the PC, you still have them just like you did before.
The CD's what?
>
>Therefore you can put your discs into any kind of CD player, even a
>changer.
Yes you can. Even those old, hard-to-use changers that you piss and
moan about...
And finally, off the subject, I find it funny that instead of
admitting that you were wrong about what a unit is worth to the
retailer and the fact that you have little experience in the act of
retail buying while being willing to hypothosize on the consumer
demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit your
mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
Of course your silence speaks volumes.
And in advance, I'll give you the last word on computer controlled CD
players vs. "physical" ones since it's pretty much a mountain out of a
mole hill stuff anyway. Each has its advantages.
Arny Krueger
And Dave you continue to miss the point. The system I proposed and which
literally millions of people including myself use does not require entry of
any data at all!
You just stick the CD into the CDROM, press the start button and the rest
happens totally hands-off. To be precise, the CD is inspected, a CDDB server
is searched and the artist, disc title and song titles are plugged-in
automatically.
> >If I really want to index into songs and play them very precisely, and
the
> >song is on a PC hard drive, I just use CoolEdit. It indexes down to the
> >individual 44.1 KHz sample, if I want to split things up that fine!
> Considering your propensity for nit-picking I wouldn't doubt that you
would do that.
Yet another case of not getting it. Some day you just might want to start
playing with the big boys and get involved in cleaning up analog program
material.
> >> >It seems like achieving this with CD appliances is doable, but it
>also
> >seems like it would be prohibitively expensive at this time.
> >
> >> I've already noted that Sony has such an interface.
> >Well, Dave if you are saying that the Sony interfaces to a CDDB database
on
> >the web then I am surely impressed! But I've got my doubts that this is a
> >standard feature. I think that if they had it I would see Sony bragging
> >about at http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/home.
> The Sony interfaces with the computer. I'm on record as saying that I
> don't know in what fashion the interface works.
In short, you are playing speculation you understand against working
technology that you don't undrestand.
> and are you suggesting that it would be difficult to do a software
> change that would allow that should Sony see a need for it (I guess
> you are later in the post.)
>
> >>A grand might be prohibitively expensive to you (and to me) but maybe
not
> >to others.
> >A $grand is not prohibilitvely expensive to me if I think the
cost/benefit
> >is right. Besides, if the Sony web site is right, the most expensive
thing
> >they have lists for about $700 these days.
> Funny, it didn't take very long for you to get *this* price information.
I used a manual technique that works like the audiomated CDDB process works.
;-)
> And actually they have a nice changer that plays DVDs also for close to a
grand.
> >> As I said, I don't know what the interface currently does, but it
seems
> >> an easy thing to allow it to access on-line databases.
>
> >Really? Just a little programming in C or Visual Basic, eh? ;-)
> I'm sure that it would be a difficult thing for a company like Sony to do
;-)
If they think there is a market for it...
> >> If it doesn't
> >> do it now, perhaps in two years it might be possible. After all, two
> >> years ago, what you are accomplishing would be virtually impossible
> >> without daisy-chaining a bunch of hard drives together. And how
> >> expensive is *that?* And some discs already have the titles programmed
> >> into the CD-text function. When I play one of those discs, I don't
> >> have to do *anything.*
> >AFAIK CD-text is not going to help the vast majority of CD's in most
> >people's collections. Some new stuff, yes.
> CD's what exactly <g>.
Weilglish?
> And BTW, how long does it take you to burn 200 CDs? It takes me about
> 30 minutes to load that many CDs into a player.
You don't have to burn CD's to do what I suggested. The major problems with
your 30 loading operation is that once you are done, you've got all those
CD's tied up in a box. You can't play them in your car. You can't play them
anyplace else.You can't loan them, and they can't be borrowed if you want to
play them all the time.
> >> >The natural enemy of CD changers remains the cheap PC hard drive.
> >> >Figure 4 to 50 albums per gigabyte, at under $10 per gigabyte.
>
> >> Well, let's see. On the low end, we're talking $500 over and above
> >> what you currently use to run your computer. Real cost effective,
> >> especially since, if you are complying with copyright, your are
> >> already spending at least a couple of grand on software.
> >If you own the CD then making a copy like this is legal. So, your "couple
of
> >grand" would seem to be pretty questionable.
> Well then, how much is your time worth? You seem to value it quite
> highly when it comes to figuring out how much you have spent on your
> web site.
Let's turn your argument around. Yes, I value my time highly. Yet I spend
time loading CD's into a computer. Therfore, I must think that time spent
loading CD's into a computer is valuable.
> >> A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And the
> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
including
> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
> and the disc was just fine.
It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
> The possibility of a turntable type CD player damaging a disc is, say,
> about that of being struck by lightning <g>. But then again, you're
> probably used to those old Pioneer cartridges that *did* indeed damage
discs.
People still have them!
>> Also, let's not forget the time involved in transferring all of those
CDs.
> >Well, you can do that in 1/3 to 1/8 the real time it takes to play back
the
> >CD, you can do it unattended except for physically loading the CD and
> >starting the process, and you can do it at the same time that you are
using
> >the portion of your library that you have already loaded.
> Well let's run the numbers. Using my CD player and an average CD time
> of, say 45 minutes, even the best case scenario makes it close to 24
> hours of continuous burning, especially when you factor in actually
> getting the discs, loading it, editing the info, etc. Worse case, you
> can double the time.
Since you can be listening and playing other CD's at the same time, the
actual dedicated time is not that much.
> You can figure on a couple of hours of loading titles to add to the 20
> mintes of so it takes to load 200 CDs into a changer.
But you accomplish far less.
> >> There's also the "pride of ownership" and the hard copy graphics to be
> >> concerned about. To add graphics to your 200 CDs on your harddrive
> >> requires even more memory.
> >Dave, after you stored the music, you've still got the physical CD's,
right?
> >There is your pride of ownership.
> >There is your stash of graphics.
> >Right where they have always been. Or, you can scan them into a document
> >database.
> I was assuming that you'd want to maximize your computer's potential
> to access graphics. I guess that's not a consideration for you though.
It's like I didn't write the paragraph right before the one you wrote.
> >>Yeah, it's an option.
>
> >After we cut away the questionable claims, it comes down to which
features
> >do you want.
> And which questionable claims are those?
Asked and answered.
> >If you want a sharable music base, then the computer jumps ahead.
> >If you want a music base that you can use to quickly burn "expendible"
> >CD-R's for portable use, the the computer at least holds its own, and
jumps
> >ahead if you would like CD-R's that are drawn from different albums.
> >If you want to mix vinyl and CD in the same database then the computer
jumps
> >ahead.
> Why? My turntable sits right next to my CD player <g>.
More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
acessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
> >If you want to really archive your CD discs in a safe place, then the
> >computer jumps ahead.
> Obviously not *totally* safe.
Obviously, you can't figure out that I was talking about putting your master
collection of CD's someplace else like maybe even in a vault.
>Now add backing up the data regularly if you *really* want to be safe.
If you have your CD's in a safe place then that is your backup archive.
> And periodically having to upgrade your
> computer and your storage media to keep up with the backwards
> incompatablility that seems to be built into computers these days.
A CD database built today can be usable as it sits for years.
> Hell, a hard drive that I bought only 4 years ago doesn't seem to be
> compatable with my current computer.
DVD's don't play in CD players. Same difference.
>At least the techs can't get it to install.
A typical 4 year old Hard drive is so small that it is not commercial to pay
someone to install it, even if the installation is trivial.
>I sure would have liked to have used it as a backup drive.
If you want a backup drive, just buy a new one. Hard drives are cheap. Right
now you can wander into a office supply store and pick up 12-15 GB high
performance drives for like $130.
> What happens 10 years from now with your current storage medium?
Let's be frank. In 10 years current hard drive technology will be pretty
lame. You will be able to fit a what is today a multiple-drive collection of
1,000's of CD on one drive. Presumably you've already migrated your
collection to newer hardware as it became desirable.
> How many times do you think you'll have to tinker with it.
Nothing is perfect Dave. Our family has trashed almost a dozen CD players in
the past 17 years. I just walked around the house testing CD players and
found 2 dead ones in a kid's bedroom and trashed them.
>To be fair,
> there is the issue of computer laser availability 10 years from now
> too when the laser eventually fils on the "physical" CD changer.
> >If you want to download songs to a portable MP3 or MD player, then the
> >computer jumps ahead.
> All good points for using it.
> Now factor in the average person's home setup. The computer is usually
> in another room. That means you have to run cables to the other room.
Hardly rocket science.
> that means that you generally can't access your computer while sitting
> in your main listening room (unless the computer is already there.)
Extension cables for keyboards, monitors, and mice are effective, readily
available and reasonably priced.
My prime sensitive listening room is computer-based, but the computer is a
hallway and a room away. They keyboard, mouse and monitor are right where I
listen.
> Some folks might want to have a terminal there (or use a laptop,) but
> many will take the path of least resistance. That means listening to
> the material on the computer's system itself. That's fine and dandy
> for personal listening. But without elaborate setups, most folks won't
> really be able to use the system to its maximum.
Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> Unlike you, I think that both systems can coexist. I see certain
> advantages for both (transportability for the "physical" CD player not
> the least.)
False claim. My family has both CD changers and access to a CD database.
> >>But you can say the same thing about books. People still want to read
> >words on paper
> >> instead of scrolling through electronic pages.
> >Unh Dave, this is listening, not reading. No scrolling is needed to
listen
> >to songs.
> No, just fairly elaborate setups to listen to music in their listening
> rooms. Time spent in conversion. Lots of incidental steps in the
> listening process.
Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> Of course you miss the analogy. Why am I not surprised?
Becasue you are aparrently entertaining yourself by whining and making false
claims.
> >> Maybe in 50 years it will be different.
>
> >Or maybe in 3 years or maybe in 3 days, or maybe 2 years ago.
> >> But a lot of social conditioning will have to change.
> >Depends who you are. I run into people all the time that are building
music
> >libraries on PC hard drives, and have been doing so for months and years.
> Once again, there is nothing wrong with that. But I'll bet you know a
> lot more people who do it the old fashioned way because "it's easier."
I know a lot of people who do it the old-fashioned way because that is the
way they have always done it.
> And there's nothing wrong with that too. A combination of both methods
> is probably the best solution. I'll bet even *you* use a CD player
> when it's convenient.
Asked and answered.
> >> I don't see these two options as mutually exclusive like you
apparently do.
> >I never said that they were mutually exclusive. After all, after you load
> >the CD's into the PC, you still have them just like you did before.
> The CD's what?
Weilglish?
> >Therefore you can put your discs into any kind of CD player, even a
changer.
> Yes you can. Even those old, hard-to-use changers that you piss and moan
about...
Hardly. Just stuff that can be obsolesced or augmented.
> And finally, off the subject, I find it funny that instead of
> admitting that you were wrong about what a unit is worth to the
> retailer and the fact that you have little experience in the act of
> retail buying while being willing to hypothosize on the consumer
> demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit your
> mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
We now enter Dave Weil's Twilight Zone...
> Of course your silence speaks volumes.
Silence about what?
> And in advance, I'll give you the last word on computer controlled CD
> players vs. "physical" ones since it's pretty much a mountain out of a
> mole hill stuff anyway. Each has its advantages.
Doh!
dave weil
wrote:
Forget the last word stuff:
>
>You don't have to burn CD's to do what I suggested. The major problems with
>your 30 loading operation is that once you are done, you've got all those
>CD's tied up in a box. You can't play them in your car. You can't play them
>anyplace else.You can't loan them, and they can't be borrowed if you want to
>play them all the time.
Sure you can. Just as you can play the CDs when you have burned them
into your computer. BTW Arny, English requires the non-usage of a
comma when denoting the plural, what you continually denote is the
possessive - hence my wondering about the CD's what - the CD's size,
the CD's surface, etc.
How do I play them in other places? I take them out <g>. Takes about
10 seconds. *That's* technology that I understand.
>> >> A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And the
>> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
>
>> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
>including
>> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
>
>> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
>> and the disc was just fine.
>
>It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
No, but your hard drive can become corrupted.
>
>> The possibility of a turntable type CD player damaging a disc is, say,
>> about that of being struck by lightning <g>. But then again, you're
>> probably used to those old Pioneer cartridges that *did* indeed damage
>discs.
>
>People still have them!
Well, they aren't 200 disc changers like we're talking about. If
someone had asked me my opinion of those during this thread I would
have said stay away from those because they damage discs.
Then what about the additional expense. You've already spent $500-1500
on additional megabytes. And now you're going to add large graphics
files. That was the point that you avoid.
>
>> >>Yeah, it's an option.
>>
>> >After we cut away the questionable claims, it comes down to which
>features
>> >do you want.
>
>> And which questionable claims are those?
>
>Asked and answered.
>
>> >If you want a sharable music base, then the computer jumps ahead.
>
>> >If you want a music base that you can use to quickly burn "expendible"
>> >CD-R's for portable use, the the computer at least holds its own, and
>jumps
>> >ahead if you would like CD-R's that are drawn from different albums.
>
>> >If you want to mix vinyl and CD in the same database then the computer
>jumps
>> >ahead.
>
>> Why? My turntable sits right next to my CD player <g>.
>
>More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
>acessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
I think you're making this up as you go...
>
>> >If you want to really archive your CD discs in a safe place, then the
>> >computer jumps ahead.
>
>> Obviously not *totally* safe.
>
>Obviously, you can't figure out that I was talking about putting your master
>collection of CD's someplace else like maybe even in a vault.
Uhhhhhh, Arny, maybe *you* can't understand about the idea that the
archive itself is vulnerable to corruption.
>
>>Now add backing up the data regularly if you *really* want to be safe.
>
>If you have your CD's in a safe place then that is your backup archive.
Oh Jeez Arny, c'mon. Nobody is claiming that the discs vanish. We're
talking about *your* original meaning of archive, which is to transfer
the original discs onto computer. *That* archive is not necessarily "a
safe place."
>
>> And periodically having to upgrade your
>> computer and your storage media to keep up with the backwards
>> incompatablility that seems to be built into computers these days.
>
>A CD database built today can be usable as it sits for years.
>
>> Hell, a hard drive that I bought only 4 years ago doesn't seem to be
>> compatable with my current computer.
>
>DVD's don't play in CD players. Same difference.
They do now. Is a DVD player that plays CDs not a CD playe
>
>>At least the techs can't get it to install.
>
>A typical 4 year old Hard drive is so small that it is not commercial to pay
>someone to install it, even if the installation is trivial.
Well they tried for me because I asked them too (I wanted a 500 meg
backup disc.) It wouldn't work. You will face the same problem in 5
-10 years. It's just more maintenance of your database.
>
>>I sure would have liked to have used it as a backup drive.
>
>If you want a backup drive, just buy a new one.
No. I'd rather use a part that was functioning just fine. It's the
recycler in me, which is why I'm not a churner in audio either.
Unfortunately the computer industry forces you to trash old gear.
Instead, I just kept my old "ancient" Pentium 200 MMX motherboard and
case and will probably use it as a household and music system.
Hard drives are cheap. Right
>now you can wander into a office supply store and pick up 12-15 GB high
>performance drives for like $130.
>
>> What happens 10 years from now with your current storage medium?
>
>Let's be frank. In 10 years current hard drive technology will be pretty
>lame. You will be able to fit a what is today a multiple-drive collection of
>1,000's of CD on one drive. Presumably you've already migrated your
>collection to newer hardware as it became desirable.
And that was my point. Duplication of effort.
>
>> How many times do you think you'll have to tinker with it.
>
>Nothing is perfect Dave. Our family has trashed almost a dozen CD players in
>the past 17 years. I just walked around the house testing CD players and
>found 2 dead ones in a kid's bedroom and trashed them.
I believe that I made that point already in the next sentence. You
see, I am able to be fair and show both sides. You, OTOH, gets locked
into a position and refuses to see both sides. It's funny really.
>
>>To be fair,
>> there is the issue of computer laser availability 10 years from now
>> too when the laser eventually fils on the "physical" CD changer.
>
>> >If you want to download songs to a portable MP3 or MD player, then the
>> >computer jumps ahead.
>
>> All good points for using it.
>
>> Now factor in the average person's home setup. The computer is usually
>> in another room. That means you have to run cables to the other room.
>
>Hardly rocket science.
>
>> that means that you generally can't access your computer while sitting
>> in your main listening room (unless the computer is already there.)
>
>Extension cables for keyboards, monitors, and mice are effective, readily
>available and reasonably priced.
It's a pain in tthe butt for most people. Something that most people
won't do. Be honest, how many people that you have visited have such
elaborate setups vs. those who have taken the easy way out and just
put a CD player in their listening room/bedroom/kitchen, etc? It's no
problem to run your entire house from a computer but few actually do
it.
>
>My prime sensitive listening room is computer-based, but the computer is a
>hallway and a room away. They keyboard, mouse and monitor are right where I
>listen.
And how many people have trouble getting their spouses to let them
bring audio gear into the living room, much less glowing computer
screens? We're talking about those without their own dedicated
listening rooms.
>
>> Some folks might want to have a terminal there (or use a laptop,) but
>> many will take the path of least resistance. That means listening to
>> the material on the computer's system itself. That's fine and dandy
>> for personal listening. But without elaborate setups, most folks won't
>> really be able to use the system to its maximum.
>
>Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
Often. But you wouldn't know about that.
>
>> Unlike you, I think that both systems can coexist. I see certain
>> advantages for both (transportability for the "physical" CD player not
>> the least.)
>
>False claim. My family has both CD changers and access to a CD database.
Yes, I thought so. Which makes all of your bluster about the issue
pretty haughty.
>
>> >>But you can say the same thing about books. People still want to read
>> >words on paper
>> >> instead of scrolling through electronic pages.
>
>> >Unh Dave, this is listening, not reading. No scrolling is needed to
>listen
>> >to songs.
>
>> No, just fairly elaborate setups to listen to music in their listening
>> rooms. Time spent in conversion. Lots of incidental steps in the
>> listening process.
>
>Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
>
>> Of course you miss the analogy. Why am I not surprised?
>
>Becasue you are aparrently entertaining yourself by whining and making false
>claims.
OK Arny, you can fucking consider the gloves off you arrogant fucking
prick. I'm tired of taking comments like that from a person who writes
like a 6th grader. You don''t deserve the polite consideration
anymore. I took you out of the killfile because I had seen promise of
someone who could discuss things without getting personal. But you
have "prooved" in the past days that you're the same old welching,
IDIOTIC (there, I said it) stupid, flaming, money "loosing" cretin.
OK. I'll go back to the original thread and demand answers from you.
Fuck courtesy you cowardly little pissant.
Arny Krueger
"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message news:39194340.847794@news...
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:22:12 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> Forget the last word stuff:
> >
> >You don't have to burn CD's to do what I suggested. The major problems
with
> >your 30 loading operation is that once you are done, you've got all those
> >CD's tied up in a box. You can't play them in your car. You can't play
them
> >anyplace else.You can't loan them, and they can't be borrowed if you want
to
> >play them all the time.
>
> Sure you can. Just as you can play the CDs when you have burned them
> into your computer.
Please tell me how you are going to play a CD in a CD changer if you lent it
out and it isn't there?
>BTW Arny, English requires the non-usage of a
> comma when denoting the plural, what you continually denote is the
> possessive - hence my wondering about the CD's what - the CD's size,
> the CD's surface, etc.
I'm still working off the pages of apostrophes that the old Middius sent me.
;-)
> How do I play them in other places? I take them out <g>. Takes about
10 seconds. *That's* technology that I understand.
No, Dave the CD is in your car, it is in your basement, it is at your
friend's house, etc.
> >> >> A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And
the
> >> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
> >> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
including
> >> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
> >> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
> >> and the disc was just fine.
> >
> >It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
> No, but your hard drive can become corrupted.
You can always reload it if you have the original CD's, no?
> >> The possibility of a turntable type CD player damaging a disc is, say,
> >> about that of being struck by lightning <g>. But then again, you're
> >> probably used to those old Pioneer cartridges that *did* indeed damage
> >discs.
> >People still have them!
> Well, they aren't 200 disc changers like we're talking about. If
> someone had asked me my opinion of those during this thread I would
> have said stay away from those because they damage discs.
> >>> Also, let's not forget the time involved in transferring all of those
> >CDs.
> >> >Well, you can do that in 1/3 to 1/8 the real time it takes to play
back the
> >> >CD, you can do it unattended except for physically loading the CD and
> >> >starting the process, and you can do it at the same time that you are
using
> >> >the portion of your library that you have already loaded.
> >> Well let's run the numbers. Using my CD player and an average CD time
> >> of, say 45 minutes, even the best case scenario makes it close to 24
> >> hours of continuous burning, especially when you factor in actually
> >> getting the discs, loading it, editing the info, etc. Worse case, you
> >> can double the time.
> >Since you can be listening and playing other CD's at the same time, the
> >actual dedicated time is not that much.
> >> You can figure on a couple of hours of loading titles to add to the 20
> >> minutes of so it takes to load 200 CDs into a changer.
Non-dedicated time.
> >But you accomplish far less.
> >> >> There's also the "pride of ownership" and the hard copy graphics to
be
> >> >> concerned about. To add graphics to your 200 CDs on your hard drive
> >> >> requires even more memory.
> >> >Dave, after you stored the music, you've still got the physical CD's,
right?
> >> >There is your pride of ownership.
> >> >There is your stash of graphics.
> >> >Right where they have always been. Or, you can scan them into a
document
> >> >database.
> >> I was assuming that you'd want to maximize your computer's potential
> >> to access graphics. I guess that's not a consideration for you though.
> >
> >It's like I didn't write the paragraph right before the one you wrote.
<Dave marches on bravely>
> Then what about the additional expense. You've already spent $500-1500
> on additional megabytes. And now you're going to add large graphics
> files. That was the point that you avoid.
I assure you that graphics isn't squat to store by digital audio standards.
Been there, done that.
> >> >>Yeah, it's an option.
> >> >After we cut away the questionable claims, it comes down to which
features
> >> >do you want.
> >> And which questionable claims are those?
> >Asked and answered.
> >> >If you want a sharable music base, then the computer jumps ahead.
>
> >> >If you want a music base that you can use to quickly burn "expendable"
> >> >CD-R's for portable use, the computer at least holds its own, and
jumps
> >> >ahead if you would like CD-R's that are drawn from different albums.
> >> >If you want to mix vinyl and CD in the same database then the computer
jumps
> >> >ahead.
> >> Why? My turntable sits right next to my CD player <g>.
> >More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
> >accessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
> I think you're making this up as you go...
Hardly. Thousands of people are doing this now. "How do I burn my LP's into
CD's" is one of the top questions on the sound card and CD burner forums.
> >> >If you want to really archive your CD discs in a safe place, then the
>>> >computer jumps ahead.
> >> Obviously not *totally* safe.
> >Obviously, you can't figure out that I was talking about putting your
master
> >collection of CD's someplace else like maybe even in a vault.
> Uhhhhhh, Arny, maybe *you* can't understand about the idea that the
archive itself is vulnerable to corruption.
Less so than if the archive is in use.
> >>Now add backing up the data regularly if you *really* want to be safe.
> >If you have your CD's in a safe place then that is your backup archive.
> Oh Jeez Arny, c'mon. Nobody is claiming that the discs vanish. We're
> talking about *your* original meaning of archive, which is to transfer
> the original discs onto computer. *That* archive is not necessarily "a
> safe place."
It does not have to be since it is the working copy, not the archive copy.
> >> And periodically having to upgrade your
> >> computer and your storage media to keep up with the backwards
> >> incompatibility that seems to be built into computers these days.
>
> >A CD database built today can be usable as it sits for years.
> >> Hell, a hard drive that I bought only 4 years ago doesn't seem to be
> >> compatible with my current computer.
> >DVD's don't play in CD players. Same difference.
> They do now. Is a DVD player that plays CDs not a CD player.
One plays the superset, the other plays a subset.
> >>At least the techs can't get it to install.
> >A typical 4 year old Hard drive is so small that it is not commercial to
pay
> >someone to install it, even if the installation is trivial.
> Well they tried for me because I asked them too (I wanted a 500 meg
> backup disc.) It wouldn't work. You will face the same problem in 5
> -10 years. It's just more maintenance of your database.
You can migrate the database from computer to computer. I move and
replicate mine not infrequently.
> >>I sure would have liked to have used it as a backup drive.
> >If you want a backup drive, just buy a new one.
> No. I'd rather use a part that was functioning just fine. It's the
> recycler in me, which is why I'm not a churner in audio either.
Computers are a far faster moving technology than audio.
> Unfortunately the computer industry forces you to trash old gear.
> Instead, I just kept my old "ancient" Pentium 200 MMX motherboard and
> case and will probably use it as a household and music system.
It could work. I'd plan on upgrading the hard drive, but perhaps not the
boot drive. I'd plan on upgrading the CDROM if its as old as the rest of the
machine.
> Hard drives are cheap. Right
> >now you can wander into a office supply store and pick up 12-15 GB high
> >performance drives for like $130.
> >> What happens 10 years from now with your current storage medium?
> >Let's be frank. In 10 years current hard drive technology will be pretty
> >lame. You will be able to fit a what is today a multiple-drive collection
of
> >1,000's of CD on one drive. Presumably you've already migrated your
> >collection to newer hardware as it became desirable.
> And that was my point. Duplication of effort.
Hardly. It's like moving your charge cards to a new wallet.
> >> How many times do you think you'll have to tinker with it.
>
> >Nothing is perfect Dave. Our family has trashed almost a dozen CD players
in
> >the past 17 years. I just walked around the house testing CD players and
> >found 2 dead ones in a kid's bedroom and trashed them.
> I believe that I made that point already in the next sentence. You
> see, I am able to be fair and show both sides. You, OTOH, gets locked
> into a position and refuses to see both sides. It's funny really.
Hardly, Dave.
> >>To be fair,
> >> there is the issue of computer laser availability 10 years from now
> >> too when the laser eventually fails on the "physical" CD changer.
> >> >If you want to download songs to a portable MP3 or MD player, then the
> >> >computer jumps ahead.
> >> All good points for using it.
> >> Now factor in the average person's home setup. The computer is usually
> >> in another room. That means you have to run cables to the other room.
> >Hardly rocket science.
> >> that means that you generally can't access your computer while sitting
> >> in your main listening room (unless the computer is already there.)
> >Extension cables for keyboards, monitors, and mice are effective, readily
> >available and reasonably priced.
> It's a pain in the butt for most people. Something that most people
> won't do. Be honest, how many people that you have visited have such
> elaborate setups vs. those who have taken the easy way out and just
> put a CD player in their listening room/bedroom/kitchen, etc? It's no
> problem to run your entire house from a computer but few actually do
> it.
It was not such an attractive option 3 years ago. Not so many low-valued
P5-200's to farm out as remote audio players. 100BTx cards and hubs weren't
as cheap. The web was not as pervasive or useful.
> >My prime sensitive listening room is computer-based, but the computer is
a
> >hallway and a room away. They keyboard, mouse and monitor are right
where I
> >listen.
> And how many people have trouble getting their spouses to let them
> bring audio gear into the living room, much less glowing computer
> screens? We're talking about those without their own dedicated
> listening rooms.
It depends on your spouse. Mine is a professional woman who uses a computer
incessantly at work. Some times she ties the machine in our dining room for
hours. My wife is also an audiophile who considers having a stereo in the
living room (in our house its really a family room and there is no formal
living room) to be a feature.
> >> Some folks might want to have a terminal there (or use a laptop,) but
> >> many will take the path of least resistance. That means listening to
> >> the material on the computer's system itself. That's fine and dandy
> >> for personal listening. But without elaborate setups, most folks won't
> >> really be able to use the system to its maximum.
> >Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> Often. But you wouldn't know about that.
Presumptuous, overbearing false claim. Prove it!
> >> Unlike you, I think that both systems can coexist. I see certain
> >> advantages for both (transportability for the "physical" CD player not
> >> the least.)
> >False claim. My family has both CD changers and access to a CD database.
> Yes, I thought so. Which makes all of your bluster about the issue pretty
haughty.
More presumptuous false claims. This all started when someone said they
wanted to do something new. I never said: "Throw out every CD player ya
got".
> >> >>But you can say the same thing about books. People still want to
read
> >> >words on paper
> >> >> instead of scrolling through electronic pages.
> >> >Unh Dave, this is listening, not reading. No scrolling is needed to
listen to songs.
> >> No, just fairly elaborate setups to listen to music in their listening
> >> rooms. Time spent in conversion. Lots of incidental steps in the
> >> listening process.
> >Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> >> Of course you miss the analogy. Why am I not surprised?
More presumptuous false claims.
> >Because you are apparently entertaining yourself by whining and making
false
> >claims.
> OK Arny, you can fucking consider the gloves off you arrogant fucking
> prick. I'm tired of taking comments like that from a person who writes
> like a 6th grader. You don't deserve the polite consideration
> anymore. I took you out of the killfile because I had seen promise of
> someone who could discuss things without getting personal. But you
> have "proved" in the past days that you're the same old welching,
> IDIOTIC (there, I said it) stupid, flaming, money "loosing" cretin.
Thanks for showing your true colors, Dave. It should be pointed out that the
5th grade gutter language you just used was 100% INTENTIONAL, not
inadvertent. So, you've got no excuses except that you lack the discretion
and judgment normally expected of civilized individuals.
> >> retail buying while being willing to hypothesize on the consumer
> >> demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit your
> >> mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
> >
> >We now enter Dave Weil's Twilight Zone...
> OK. I'll go back to the original thread and demand answers from you.
> Fuck courtesy you cowardly little pissant.
Thanks again for showing your true colors one more time, Dave. It should be
pointed out that the 5th grade gutter language you just used again was 100%
INTENTIONAL, not inadvertent. So, you've still got no excuses except that
you still lack the discretion and judgment normally expected of civilized
adults.
dave weil
wrote:
> >Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> Often. But you wouldn't know about that.
Presumptuous, overbearing false claim. Prove it!
Prove that you know anything about the high end first.
And how many people have trouble getting their spouses to let them
> bring audio gear into the living room, much less glowing computer
> screens? We're talking about those without their own dedicated
> listening rooms.
It depends on your spouse. Mine is a professional woman who uses a
computer incessantly at work. Some times she ties the machine in our
dining room for hours.
Her kinks are irrelevant.
My wife is also an audiophile who considers having a stereo in the
living room (in our house its really a family room and there is no
formal living room) to be a feature.
Well, at least there's *one* audiophile in the family.
It's a pain in the butt for most people. Something that most people
> won't do. Be honest, how many people that you have visited have such
> elaborate setups vs. those who have taken the easy way out and just
> put a CD player in their listening room/bedroom/kitchen, etc? It's no
> problem to run your entire house from a computer but few actually do
> it.
It was not such an attractive option 3 years ago. Not so many
low-valued
P5-200's to farm out as remote audio players. 100BTx cards and hubs
weren't
as cheap. The web was not as pervasive or useful.
Which doesn't mean that masses of people have fallen into line.
And three years ago you couldn't input titles into a Sony CD player
using a keyboard either. That doesn't mean that they won't upgrade the
software (if the capabiltiy isn't already there) to allow downloading
of titles from on-line databases.
Well they tried for me because I asked them too (I wanted a 500 meg
> backup disc.) It wouldn't work. You will face the same problem in 5
> -10 years. It's just more maintenance of your database.
You can migrate the database from computer to computer. I move and
replicate mine not infrequently.
What part of "more maintenance" did you miss? The "more" or the
"maintenance?"
More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
> >accessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
> I think you're making this up as you go...
Hardly. Thousands of people are doing this now. "How do I burn my LP's
into CD's" is one of the top questions on the sound card and CD burner
forums.
Once again point missed.
Hey Arny, your spell-checker missed CD's again, you illiterate
screwball.
Then what about the additional expense. You've already spent $500-1500
> on additional megabytes. And now you're going to add large graphics
> files. That was the point that you avoid.
I assure you that graphics isn't squat to store by digital audio
standards. Been there, done that.
No, it just takes *dedicated* time. And lots of memory. That's all.
A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And
the
> >> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
> >> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
including
> >> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the mechanism.
> >> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
> >> and the disc was just fine.
> >
> >It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
> No, but your hard drive can become corrupted.
You can always reload it if you have the original CD's, no?
More work. More time.
>> OK Arny, you can fucking consider the gloves off you arrogant fucking
>> prick. I'm tired of taking comments like that from a person who writes
>> like a 6th grader. You don't deserve the polite consideration
>> anymore. I took you out of the killfile because I had seen promise of
>> someone who could discuss things without getting personal. But you
>> have "proved" in the past days that you're the same old welching,
>> IDIOTIC (there, I said it) stupid, flaming, money "loosing" cretin.
>
>Thanks for showing your true colors, Dave. It should be pointed out that the
>5th grade gutter language you just used was 100% INTENTIONAL, not
>inadvertent. So, you've got no excuses except that you lack the discretion
>and judgment normally expected of civilized individuals.
Of course it was INTENTIONAL you moron. I tried being patient with you
over your web site and you claimed all sorts of ulterior motives while
trashing me. If you want to play the schoolyard bully, you picked the
wrong person.
I tried the polite approach. I overlooked your incessant baiting.
Since you seem to want to be bitch slapped, then I'm happy to oblige.
This is precisely the reason that so many people use you as a personal
punching bag.
And speaking of civilized, I suppose you consider yourself as such.
Even though, as George just pointed out, you make all sorts of
"civilized" salacious posts about sex.
>> >
>> >> And finally, off the subject, I find it funny that instead of
>> >> admitting that you were wrong about what a unit is worth to the
>> >> retailer and the fact that you have little experience in the act of
>> >> retail buying while being willing to hypothesize on the consumer
>> >> demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit your
>> >> mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
>> >
>> >We now enter Dave Weil's Twilight Zone...
>
>> OK. I'll go back to the original thread and demand answers from you.
>
>> Fuck courtesy you cowardly little pissant.
>
>Thanks again for showing your true colors one more time, Dave. It should be
>pointed out that the 5th grade gutter language you just used again was 100%
>INTENTIONAL, not inadvertent. So, you've still got no excuses except that
>you still lack the discretion and judgment normally expected of civilized
>adults.
And you show that you are a repetitive little drivvel-monger who
doesn't even have the creativity to keep from cutting and pasting the
same worthless dreck. How's *that* for intentional you clueless
bastard?
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:51:56 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
<note from Arny - the following will be hard to follow because Mr. Weil
seems to have dropped one level of ">"'s the last time he posted a reply>
> wrote:
>> >Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
> > Often. But you wouldn't know about that.
Arny wrote:
> Presumptuous, overbearing false claim. Prove it!
Mr. Weil wrote:
> Prove that you know anything about the high end first.
The US is not a guilty until proven innocent country, Mr Weil. First you
have to show a good reason to have doubt.
Mr. Weil wrote:
> > And how many people have trouble getting their spouses to let them
> > bring audio gear into the living room, much less glowing computer
> > screens? We're talking about those without their own dedicated
> > listening rooms.
>
> It depends on your spouse. Mine is a professional woman who uses a
> computer incessantly at work. Some times she ties the machine in our
> dining room for hours.
Mr. Weil wrote a nonsense reply:
> Her kinks are irrelevant.
Arny wrote:
> My wife is also an audiophile who considers having a stereo in the
> living room (in our house its really a family room and there is no
> formal living room) to be a feature.
Mr. Weil wrote a nonsense reply:
> Well, at least there's *one* audiophile in the family.
> > It's a pain in the butt for most people. Something that most people
> > won't do. Be honest, how many people that you have visited have such
> > elaborate setups vs. those who have taken the easy way out and just
> > put a CD player in their listening room/bedroom/kitchen, etc? It's no
> > problem to run your entire house from a computer but few actually do
> > it.
Arny wrote:
> It was not such an attractive option 3 years ago. Not so many low-valued
> P5-200's to farm out as remote audio players. 100BTx cards and hubs
weren't
> as cheap. The web was not as pervasive or useful.
Mr. Weil wrote:
> Which doesn't mean that masses of people have fallen into line.
Since when is the high end about "the masses"?
Mr. Weil wrote:
> And three years ago you couldn't input titles into a Sony CD player
> using a keyboard either. That doesn't mean that they won't upgrade the
> software (if the capabiltiy isn't already there) to allow downloading
> of titles from on-line databases.
I think it will be great, if they get around to it! But I just might not
benefit from the future. I also don't think nearly as many people are going
to string a modem, cable, or computer line to their Sony CD player as they
do to their PC.
Mr. Weil wrote:
> Well they tried for me because I asked them too (I wanted a 500 meg
> > backup disc.) It wouldn't work. You will face the same problem in 5
> > -10 years. It's just more maintenance of your database.
> You can migrate the database from computer to computer. I move and
> replicate mine not infrequently.
Mr. Weil wrote:
> What part of "more maintenance" did you miss? The "more" or the
"maintenance?"
I don't miss more maintenance. I don't miss manual data entry, either.
Arny wrote:
> > >More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
> > >accessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
> > I think you're making this up as you go...
> Hardly. Thousands of people are doing this now. "How do I burn my LP's
> into CDs" is one of the top questions on the sound card and CD burner
> forums.
> Once again point missed.
If there is one, Mr. Weil why don't you spell it out?
> Hey Arny, your spell-checker missed CD's again, you illiterate screwball.
CD's is a properly spelled word. CDs is a properly word. Not a spell-checker
function.
Mr. Weil, Some day I may be so kind as to tell you about the difference
between spelling and grammar.
> > Then what about the additional expense. You've already spent $500-1500
> > on additional megabytes. And now you're going to add large graphics
> > files. That was the point that you avoid.
> I assure you that graphics isn't squat to store by digital audio
> standards. Been there, done that.
> No, it just takes *dedicated* time. And lots of memory. That's all.
Good fast scanners exist. As I said, compared to audio, bitmaps are easy. It
is optional, anyway.
> > >> >>A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And
the
> > >> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
> > >> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
including
> > >> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the
mechanism.
> > >> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
> > >> and the disc was just fine.
> > >It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
> > No, but your hard drive can become corrupted.
> You can always reload it if you have the original CD's, no?
> More work. More time.
Since when is the high end about doing things the easiest possible way?
> >> OK Arny, you can fucking consider the gloves off you arrogant fucking
> >> prick. I'm tired of taking comments like that from a person who writes
> >> like a 6th grader. You don't deserve the polite consideration
> >> anymore. I took you out of the killfile because I had seen promise of
> >> someone who could discuss things without getting personal. But you
> >> have "proved" in the past days that you're the same old welching,
> >> IDIOTIC (there, I said it) stupid, flaming, money "loosing" cretin.
> >Thanks for showing your true colors, Dave. It should be pointed out that
the
> >5th grade gutter language you just used was 100% INTENTIONAL, not
> >inadvertent. So, you've got no excuses except that you lack the
discretion
> >and judgment normally expected of civilized individuals.
> Of course it was INTENTIONAL you moron. I tried being patient with you
> over your web site and you claimed all sorts of ulterior motives while
> trashing me. If you want to play the schoolyard bully, you picked the
> wrong person.
Mr. Weil it should be clear by now that iIf I wanted to be attacked by a
person with the mentality of a schoolyard bully I "picked" exactly the right
person. ;-(
> I tried the polite approach.
Mr. Weil I think you should ask Miss Manners if there is a polite way to
attack someone in public by slandering their possessions and personal work.
> I overlooked your incessant baiting.
Mr. Weil, your whole presentation was bait.
> Since you seem to want to be bitch slapped, then I'm happy to oblige.
"Bitch Slapped" is an interesting phrase. It is not immediately clear from
the words whether it is the bitch that is doing the slapping or whether it
is the bitch that is being slapped. In the case of your recent attacks, I
think it is clear that the bitch is trying to do the slapping.
> This is precisely the reason that so many people use you as a personal
punching bag.
"Arny made me do it". Darn, isn't rao like a middle-school playground when
you and your kind want to "play"?
> And speaking of civilized, I suppose you consider yourself as such.
> Even though, as George just pointed out, you make all sorts of
> "civilized" salacious posts about sex.
Actually, if you tried to follow up on Mr. Middius' claims you would have
found out something different. But shallowness is your way, is it not Mr.
Weil?
> >> >> And finally, off the subject, I find it funny that instead of
> >> >> admitting that you were wrong about what a unit is worth to the
> >> >> retailer and the fact that you have little experience in the act of
> >> >> retail buying while being willing to hypothesize on the consumer
> >> >> demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit
your
> >> >> mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
>
> >> >We now enter Dave Weil's Twilight Zone...
>
> >> OK. I'll go back to the original thread and demand answers from you.
> >> Fuck courtesy you cowardly little pissant.
> >Thanks again for showing your true colors one more time, Dave. It should
be
> >pointed out that the 5th grade gutter language you just used again was
100%
> >INTENTIONAL, not inadvertent. So, you've still got no excuses except that
> >you still lack the discretion and judgment normally expected of civilized
> >adults.
> And you show that you are a repetitive little drivvel-monger who
> doesn't even have the creativity to keep from cutting and pasting the
> same worthless dreck. How's *that* for intentional you clueless
> bastard?
Thanks again for showing your "maturity", " good manners" and "grace under
fire" one more time, Dave.
Time for some attitude adjustment, Dave. What is your favorite relaxant?
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3919857d.17792177@news...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:51:56 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
><note from Arny - the following will be hard to follow because Mr. Weil
>seems to have dropped one level of ">"'s the last time he posted a reply>
It's called "pulling an Arny" and not caring about readability since I
took the path of least resistance and did the *other* Arny thing of
cutting and pasting.
>
>> wrote:
>
>>> >Since when is the high end about avoiding elaborate steps?
>
>> > Often. But you wouldn't know about that.
>
>Arny wrote:
>
>> Presumptuous, overbearing false claim. Prove it!
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> Prove that you know anything about the high end first.
>
>The US is not a guilty until proven innocent country, Mr Weil. First you
>have to show a good reason to have doubt.
A couple of years of your postings is enough. If the evidence fits, I
say convict!
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> > And how many people have trouble getting their spouses to let them
>> > bring audio gear into the living room, much less glowing computer
>> > screens? We're talking about those without their own dedicated
>> > listening rooms.
>>
>> It depends on your spouse. Mine is a professional woman who uses a
>> computer incessantly at work. Some times she ties the machine in our
>> dining room for hours.
>
>Mr. Weil wrote a nonsense reply:
>
>> Her kinks are irrelevant.
It's not nonsense if you can decode humor.
>
>Arny wrote:
>
>> My wife is also an audiophile who considers having a stereo in the
>> living room (in our house its really a family room and there is no
>> formal living room) to be a feature.
>
>Mr. Weil wrote a nonsense reply:
>
>> Well, at least there's *one* audiophile in the family.
It's not nonsense when you realize that *one* of the members of the
household has shown that he isn't much of an audiophile.
>
>
>> > It's a pain in the butt for most people. Something that most people
>> > won't do. Be honest, how many people that you have visited have such
>> > elaborate setups vs. those who have taken the easy way out and just
>> > put a CD player in their listening room/bedroom/kitchen, etc? It's no
>> > problem to run your entire house from a computer but few actually do
>> > it.
>
>Arny wrote:
>
>> It was not such an attractive option 3 years ago. Not so many low-valued
>> P5-200's to farm out as remote audio players. 100BTx cards and hubs
>weren't
>> as cheap. The web was not as pervasive or useful.
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> Which doesn't mean that masses of people have fallen into line.
>
>Since when is the high end about "the masses"?
I didn't say "the masses." Once again, prove that you have extensive
high end purchasing experience at the retail level.
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> And three years ago you couldn't input titles into a Sony CD player
>> using a keyboard either. That doesn't mean that they won't upgrade the
>> software (if the capabiltiy isn't already there) to allow downloading
>> of titles from on-line databases.
>
>I think it will be great, if they get around to it! But I just might not
>benefit from the future.
You would if you already had a unit that can be upgraded on a simple
software level as many people do. I'd be willing to bet that many more
people have a keyboard-enabled CD player than those that use your
solution (which is a perfectly fine solution.)
I also don't think nearly as many people are going
>to string a modem, cable, or computer line to their Sony CD player as they
>do to their PC.
And what's to keep Sony from making the next simple step and doing
software that ties the Cd player to the computer (if the software
package that they offer already doesn't do that?)
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> Well they tried for me because I asked them too (I wanted a 500 meg
>> > backup disc.) It wouldn't work. You will face the same problem in 5
>> > -10 years. It's just more maintenance of your database.
>
>> You can migrate the database from computer to computer. I move and
>> replicate mine not infrequently.
>
>Mr. Weil wrote:
>
>> What part of "more maintenance" did you miss? The "more" or the
>"maintenance?"
>
>I don't miss more maintenance. I don't miss manual data entry, either.
Yep, you missed it completely. As usual.
>
>Arny wrote:
>
>> > >More problems. Handling and playing LP's degrades them. Keeping them
>> > >accessible in one place means they can't be someplace else.
>
>> > I think you're making this up as you go...
>
>> Hardly. Thousands of people are doing this now. "How do I burn my LP's
>> into CDs" is one of the top questions on the sound card and CD burner
>> forums.
>
>> Once again point missed.
>
>If there is one, Mr. Weil why don't you spell it out?
I don't think so. Maybe excercising your brain will help you in the
future.
>
>> Hey Arny, your spell-checker missed CD's again, you illiterate screwball.
>
>CD's is a properly spelled word. CDs is a properly word. Not a spell-checker
>function.
Exactly. Now maybe you should try correcting your mistakes in the
interest of self-improvement.
>
>Mr. Weil, Some day I may be so kind as to tell you about the difference
>between spelling and grammar.
You wish. Especially since you don't have much of a grasp of either.
>
>> > Then what about the additional expense. You've already spent $500-1500
>> > on additional megabytes. And now you're going to add large graphics
>> > files. That was the point that you avoid.
>
>> I assure you that graphics isn't squat to store by digital audio
>> standards. Been there, done that.
>
>> No, it just takes *dedicated* time. And lots of memory. That's all.
>
>Good fast scanners exist. As I said, compared to audio, bitmaps are easy. It
>is optional, anyway.
Still, scanning and organizing 200 CDs worth or graphics will take
plenty of "dedicated" time.
>
>> > >> >>A more logical choice is a physical player with an interface. And
>the
>> > >> >> issue of disc corruption becomes pretty moot.
>
>> > >> >Except for the possibility of physical damage by the CD changer,
>including
>> > >> >the CD changer quitting with a disc stuck someplace in the
>mechanism.
>
>> > >> That happened to me once. It took me about 2 minutes to disengage it.
>> > >> and the disc was just fine.
>
>> > >It can't happen when CD's are loaded onto a hard drive.
>
>> > No, but your hard drive can become corrupted.
>
>> You can always reload it if you have the original CD's, no?
>
>> More work. More time.
>
>Since when is the high end about doing things the easiest possible way?
You've said that already and you've failed to prove much knowledge of
the high end.
>
>> >> OK Arny, you can fucking consider the gloves off you arrogant fucking
>> >> prick. I'm tired of taking comments like that from a person who writes
>> >> like a 6th grader. You don't deserve the polite consideration
>> >> anymore. I took you out of the killfile because I had seen promise of
>> >> someone who could discuss things without getting personal. But you
>> >> have "proved" in the past days that you're the same old welching,
>> >> IDIOTIC (there, I said it) stupid, flaming, money "loosing" cretin.
>
>> >Thanks for showing your true colors, Dave. It should be pointed out that
>the
>> >5th grade gutter language you just used was 100% INTENTIONAL, not
>> >inadvertent. So, you've got no excuses except that you lack the
>discretion
>> >and judgment normally expected of civilized individuals.
>
>> Of course it was INTENTIONAL you moron. I tried being patient with you
>> over your web site and you claimed all sorts of ulterior motives while
>> trashing me. If you want to play the schoolyard bully, you picked the
>> wrong person.
>
>Mr. Weil it should be clear by now that iIf I wanted to be attacked by a
>person with the mentality of a schoolyard bully I "picked" exactly the right
>person. ;-(
Don't frown Arny, it screws up your laugh lines you fucking bully.
>
>> I tried the polite approach.
>
>Mr. Weil I think you should ask Miss Manners if there is a polite way to
>attack someone in public by slandering their possessions and personal work.
It wasn't an attack but an attempt to be helpful you ignorant slut.
>
>> I overlooked your incessant baiting.
>
>Mr. Weil, your whole presentation was bait.
Bullshit. I'm sorry that you were too defensive to see it in the light
in which it was offered.
>
>> Since you seem to want to be bitch slapped, then I'm happy to oblige.
>
>"Bitch Slapped" is an interesting phrase. It is not immediately clear from
>the words whether it is the bitch that is doing the slapping or whether it
>is the bitch that is being slapped. In the case of your recent attacks, I
>think it is clear that the bitch is trying to do the slapping.
You might try finding out what bitch slapped means before you
speculate about it.
>
>> This is precisely the reason that so many people use you as a personal
>punching bag.
>
>"Arny made me do it". Darn, isn't rao like a middle-school playground when
>you and your kind want to "play"?
Apparently Arny *did* make them do it. Time after time. You want to
play, you'll pay.
>
>> And speaking of civilized, I suppose you consider yourself as such.
>> Even though, as George just pointed out, you make all sorts of
>> "civilized" salacious posts about sex.
>
>Actually, if you tried to follow up on Mr. Middius' claims you would have
>found out something different. But shallowness is your way, is it not Mr.
>Weil?
I didn't have to. Are you denying his cut and paste? Are you saying
that you didn't write those words?
>
>> >> >> And finally, off the subject, I find it funny that instead of
>> >> >> admitting that you were wrong about what a unit is worth to the
>> >> >> retailer and the fact that you have little experience in the act of
>> >> >> retail buying while being willing to hypothesize on the consumer
>> >> >> demanding to use the wholesale price, that you chose not to admit
>your
>> >> >> mistake and chose to run away from the conversation.
>>
>> >> >We now enter Dave Weil's Twilight Zone...
>>
>> >> OK. I'll go back to the original thread and demand answers from you.
>
>> >> Fuck courtesy you cowardly little pissant.
>
>> >Thanks again for showing your true colors one more time, Dave. It should
>be
>> >pointed out that the 5th grade gutter language you just used again was
>100%
>> >INTENTIONAL, not inadvertent. So, you've still got no excuses except that
>> >you still lack the discretion and judgment normally expected of civilized
>> >adults.
>
>> And you show that you are a repetitive little drivvel-monger who
>> doesn't even have the creativity to keep from cutting and pasting the
>> same worthless dreck. How's *that* for intentional you clueless
>> bastard?
>
>Thanks again for showing your "maturity", " good manners" and "grace under
>fire" one more time, Dave.
You don't deserve it you snivveling little bastard.
>
>Time for some attitude adjustment, Dave. What is your favorite relaxant?
A kill-file worked wonders the last time.
Arny Krueger
<stuff>
Try this one, Dave: http://www.wintektx.com/
krom...@my-deja.com
1)There are two devices for the PC that can control MegaChangers and
offer jukebox/playlist functionality. One is called SLink-e, not sure
what the other is called. (The Slink-e only controls Sony Megachangers
over the S-link interface hence the name).
2)What I've done is purchased a Philips Pronto programmable touchscreen
remote, and programmed in a browsable list of CD names *and* track
names for all my CDs. That way, I dont have to look at a PC screen, I
can look at a screen in my hand. (Although it cant give 2-way feedback
on what exactly is playing)
Plus, the Pronto is just a damn fine remote in its own right.
Andy K.
In article <8d3ojd$1qp$1...@pampascat.middlebury.edu>,
> Adam
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dave weil
<pm...@u1.abs.net> wrote:
>Otter <adamfran...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
>: collection. I am mostly interested in anything 200 disc and above, but info
>: for any size would be apreciated. Durring the course of using my 5 disc
>
> Sony's 200 / 300 disc changers are great. the DACs suck, natch, but
>just use an outboard d/a.
>
>: addition, using the computer, it is a snap to search for songs by tile or
>: any given criteria, or to make long involved playlists. Now for my
>: question: Are there any large capacity changers on the market that interface
>: with a PC (or even Mac)? If not, do you know of any plans of releasing a
>
> There's a company called nirvis that has everything you need. The
>software /rocks/ and is free. They sell a box for $250 (i think) that lets
>your pc talk to sony changers. HIGHLY RECCOMENDED, I use mine everyday. it
>catalogs your collection for, using the cddb. check it out. www.nirvis.com
Take note Arny.
dave weil
>Two solutions:
>
>1)There are two devices for the PC that can control MegaChangers and
>offer jukebox/playlist functionality. One is called SLink-e, not sure
>what the other is called. (The Slink-e only controls Sony Megachangers
>over the S-link interface hence the name).
Take note Arny.
>
>2)What I've done is purchased a Philips Pronto programmable touchscreen
>remote, and programmed in a browsable list of CD names *and* track
>names for all my CDs. That way, I dont have to look at a PC screen, I
>can look at a screen in my hand. (Although it cant give 2-way feedback
>on what exactly is playing)
Take note Arny.
dave weil
Looks like the Michigan Mr. Wizard can learn something about computers
and CD players...
...amazing that a little scut like me could beat Arny to the punch.
I wonder what *else* Arny doesn't know...
Arny Krueger
Only in your dreams.
You might want to check the messages in this thread and see that at 2:12 pm
on the same day, at least an hour and 15 minutes earlier I posted the URL of
a site with similar hardware and software.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Which I guessed was a possibility, what, only a day or so before and
which you seemed to pooh-pooh.
No, I hadn't checked into the specifics because *my* current changer
isn't keyboard capable. However, it will make a perfect slave in my
upcoming 500 disc changer system, which *will* be keyboard capable.
At least *this* thought experiment proved to be true. If you weren't
so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have the
keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
software solutions.
I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my
computer's CD drive can.
Humility is a bitch.
Arny Krueger
The product category still has the rest of the disadvantages I cited. It
appears to be a legacy product left over from the days when hard drives and
PC's were far more costly.
> No, I hadn't checked into the specifics because *my* current changer
> isn't keyboard capable. However, it will make a perfect slave in my
> upcoming 500 disc changer system, which *will* be keyboard capable.
AFAIK, these products don't require that your changer be keyboard capable.
Letsee:
Works with:
Pioneer® PD-F07, PD-F19, PD-F59, PD-M59, PD-F79, PD-F100, PD-F104,PD-F107,
PD-F109, PD-F904, PD-F905, PD-F906, PD-F907, PD-F908, PD-F957,PD-958,
PD-F1004, PD-F1005, PD-F1006, PD-F1007 (301-discs), PD-F50+1, PD-F805,
AD-PD1, PD-605/705, (and ALL other Pioneer models with the "SR" logo),
Optimus CD-100 from Radio Shack, DV-F727
Sony CDP-CX... (ALL Sony Slink/Control-A1 Supported Changers), CDP-CX151
(requires modifying cable),CDP-CX153 (requires modifying cable), CDP-CX200,
CDP-CX205, CDP-CX210, CDP-CX220, CDP-CX240, CDP-CX250, CDP-CX255, CDP-CX260,
CDP-CX270, CDP-CX300, CDP-CX350, CDP-CX70ES, CDP-CX88ES, CDP-CX90S, Any
other 100/200/300 that has SLink/Control-A1 inputs , That's all newer Sony®
200's and 300's.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I don't a lot
mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
> At least *this* thought experiment proved to be true.
Never said it couldn't be. But in many cases the interface hardware+software
costs more than the changer, and still needs a PC interface, and still
requires that you dedicate your CD collection to the changer.
http://www.wintektx.com/wintek10.htm says that their device is hooked to a
PC via the serial interface. Of course if you have a PC with a modem and a
serial mouse, you may have to add another one of those, as well! No matter
how you look at it, you are stuck with wires running from your PC to your
stereo system. Now, a few days ago this was a serious problem for you Dave?
Have you reconsidered this?
> If you weren't
> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have the
> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
> software solutions.
It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
instead are hardware/software hybrids.
http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer cable
from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller, and
then another cable to your CD changer.
> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly. And you still
don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you raised to
my PC-based solution applies to this one as well. These hardware/software
solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software integration.
They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They don't
provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides. Once you add
up all the costs, they might even cost more.
> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my computer's
CD drive can.
Hardly. To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
> Humility is a bitch.
No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you in the
nose! ;-(
dave weil
wrote:
I'm really having trouble reading this sentence. Is this Caribbean?
>
>> At least *this* thought experiment proved to be true.
>
>Never said it couldn't be. But in many cases the interface hardware+software
>costs more than the changer,
And in many cases, upgrading your computer to be able to hold 200 CDs
costs more than the computer itself. So what?
and still needs a PC interface, and still
>requires that you dedicate your CD collection to the changer.
>http://www.wintektx.com/wintek10.htm says that their device is hooked to a
>PC via the serial interface. Of course if you have a PC with a modem and a
>serial mouse, you may have to add another one of those, as well! No matter
>how you look at it, you are stuck with wires running from your PC to your
>stereo system. Now, a few days ago this was a serious problem for you Dave?
Yes, it still can be. But it remains an option. However, your solution
*requires* such a hookup to access the 200 discs. Mine does not.
You are stuck either using the computer, or using whatever CD player
you have on hand, which I assume isn't a changer, because if it is,
then my solution has already been employed.
And you can still go ahead and employ your solution after getting a
large changer, one that is apparently able to be a COMPUTER CONTROLED
CD PLAYER (the title of this thread after all.) Then you have the best
of both worlds.
>> If you weren't
>> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
>> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have the
>> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
>> software solutions.
>
>It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
>instead are hardware/software hybrids.
Well, simple hardware/software solutions in this case. As I said, I
haven't investigated *how* the current keyboard interface works. I'll
call the local Sony dealer though and find out for sure, especially
since I'll be in the market for a new one pretty soon. Could very well
already be an option, whether or not they choose to highlight it on
the web. And if it isn't, then a software solution is the answer.
>
>http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
>controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer cable
>from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller, and
>then another cable to your CD changer.
You mean like hooking up my joystick? Boy, that's a tough one.
All I have to do is hook it up one time and download the data. Then
I'm free to employ the CD player wherever I wish since the main
purpose was to do automatic loading of the titles. Would it be worth
it to me to spend $250? Probably not. Not unless I wished to get as
elaborate as you want to by basing your audio system around your PC.
But the option certainly is there. And who knows, by buying the right
Sony product, that capability might already be there.
You see, just as you don't see a problem with spend 1 to 2 days
burning discs, I don't see spending the same time entering titles
because it puts me in touch with my CDs. It's not time wasted, anymore
than you don't consider the burning time wasted. However, I *do* like
for it to be easy to do, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY RECOMMENDING
SONY CD PLAYERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You, of course, turned it into
polemics as usual.
>> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
>
>Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly.
Wasn't blind at all. And it turned out to be right.
>don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you raised to
>my PC-based solution applies to this one as well.
Yes. However, you originally said,
Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently
using not
a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and
rare
CD-text discs."
Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from
codes
on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes
(IME)
CD's going back to year one of CD availability."
Turns out Dave's plan has that solution too it seems if one so
chooses.
These hardware/software
>solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software integration.
>They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They don't
>provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides.
Oh, so now it's a PC only solution. What happened to the other CD
players that you have around the house? We're back to the exclusivity
thing again.
Once you add
>up all the costs, they might even cost more.
Yeah, it goes from $500 to $800. Right. About what you said it would
cost to upgrade your computer in the best case scenario.
>
>> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my computer's
>CD drive can.
>
>Hardly.
Yes.
To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
>need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
Of course you do you moron. Are you now saying that the Sony CD
players *can't* access cddb databases?
>> Humility is a bitch.
>
>No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you in the
>nose! ;-(
Don't frown Arny, it makes your face a match for your ass.
Arny Krueger
Arny wote:
> >The product category still has the rest of the disadvantages I cited. It
> >appears to be a legacy product left over from the days when hard drives
and
> >PC's were far more costly.
Dave wrote:
Dave, If a missing "of" eliminates your abiltiy to parse a sentence you
really need to learn to decode less-than-perfect English or stay out of the
real world.
> >> At least *this* thought experiment proved to be true.
> >
> >Never said it couldn't be. But in many cases the interface
hardware+software
> >costs more than the changer,
> And in many cases, upgrading your computer to be able to hold 200 CDs
> costs more than the computer itself. So what?
In many cases 200 CD can be put on a PC with no upgrades at all.
> and still needs a PC interface, and still
> >requires that you dedicate your CD collection to the changer.
> >http://www.wintektx.com/wintek10.htm says that their device is hooked to
a
> >PC via the serial interface. Of course if you have a PC with a modem and
a
> >serial mouse, you may have to add another one of those, as well! No
matter
> >how you look at it, you are stuck with wires running from your PC to your
> >stereo system. Now, a few days ago this was a serious problem for you
Dave?
> Yes, it still can be. But it remains an option. However, your solution
> *requires* such a hookup to access the 200 discs.
Only if I want to play the discs on a stereo that is better than the PC all
by itself.
BTW, have you ever heard a PC that didn't sound like crap?
> Mine does not.
Mine doesn't require a CD changer or interface box.
> You are stuck either using the computer, or using whatever CD player
> you have on hand, which I assume isn't a changer, because if it is,
> then my solution has already been employed.
In many people's worlds there are more PC's than home stereos.
> And you can still go ahead and employ your solution after getting a
> large changer, one that is apparently able to be a COMPUTER CONTROLED
> CD PLAYER (the title of this thread after all.) Then you have the best
> of both worlds.
Why keep hopping and skipping between two worlds when you can do it all in
one?
> >> If you weren't
> >> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
> >> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have the
> >> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
> >> software solutions.
>
>It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
> >instead are hardware/software hybrids.
> Well, simple hardware/software solutions in this case.
That remains to be seen. *Everything* looks great on a web page.
>As I said, I
> haven't investigated *how* the current keyboard interface works. I'll
> call the local Sony dealer though and find out for sure, especially
> since I'll be in the market for a new one pretty soon. Could very well
> already be an option, whether or not they choose to highlight it on
> the web. And if it isn't, then a software solution is the answer.
For you. The world is full of people who don't have a CD changer and never
will.
> >http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
> >controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer cable
> >from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller, and
> >then another cable to your CD changer.
> You mean like hooking up my joystick? Boy, that's a tough one.
Serial interfaces are often more complex than hooking up a joystick. Last
time I looked you didn't have to set baud rate on joysticks.
> All I have to do is hook it up one time and download the data. Then
> I'm free to employ the CD player wherever I wish since the main
> purpose was to do automatic loading of the titles.
Interesting question. Do these products download the titles to the CD
changer or just control the CD changer remotely. I'll leave resolution of
that question to you, Dave.
>Would it be worth
> it to me to spend $250? Probably not. Not unless I wished to get as
> elaborate as you want to by basing your audio system around your PC.
Enjoy typing in all those song titles, Dave! Remember that IBM stands for
"It's Better done Manually". ;-)
> But the option certainly is there. And who knows, by buying the right
> Sony product, that capability might already be there.
I the case of the solution I proposed it all just works.
> You see, just as you don't see a problem with spend 1 to 2 days
> burning discs, I don't see spending the same time entering titles
> because it puts me in touch with my CDs.
Well that would be your personal preference Dave. I've always preferred to
not reinvent the wheel or do manual data entry of what is already on the
computer.
>It's not time wasted, anymore
> than you don't consider the burning time wasted.
BTW you keep saying "burning". My solution includes no burning except if you
want to clone some CD's.
> However, I *do* like for it to be easy to do, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT
OF MY RECOMMENDING
> SONY CD PLAYERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You, of course, turned it into
polemics as usual.
No Dave. I talked to someone else about a solution that anybody with a
Windows PC, an internet connection, some free disk space and a sound card
and a windows PC can implement in about half an hour with zero out-of-pocket
expense. You butted in and started ranting about the joys of entering song
titles with a dial on the front of an appliance.
> >> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
> >Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly.
> Wasn't blind at all. And it turned out to be right.
Dave, it is retro-technology to be sure. Right down your alley it seems.
> >don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you raised
to
> >my PC-based solution applies to this one as well.
>
> Yes. However, you originally said,
> Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently using
not
> a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and
> rare CD-text discs."
> Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from
codes
> on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes (IME)
> CD's going back to year one of CD availability."
> Turns out Dave's plan has that solution too it seems if one so chooses.
And pay extra bucks. People can get started with my solution and have it
working with zero out of pocket expense, within the half-hour.
> These hardware/software
> >solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software
integration.
> >They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They
don't
> >provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides.
> Oh, so now it's a PC only solution. What happened to the other CD
> players that you have around the house? We're back to the exclusivity
> thing again.
Hardly. I still have my physical CD library. Unlike your's its sitting in
the original CD cases ready to be used where needed. Of course, since most
of the PC's in the house are networked to the music database, we don't do
that too much any more.
> Once you add >up all the costs, they might even cost more.
People can get started with my solution for $0. out of pocket expense, and
have it up and running in 30 minutes!
> Yeah, it goes from $500 to $800. Right. About what you said it would
> cost to upgrade your computer in the best case scenario.
In the best case scenario the incremental cost is as low as $0.00.
> >> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my
computer's >CD drive can.
> >Hardly.
> Yes.
Prove it!
> To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
> >need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
> Of course you do you moron. Are you now saying that the Sony CD
> players *can't* access cddb databases?
I think you need to research that and come back with an answer.
> >> Humility is a bitch.
> >
> >No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you in
the
> >nose! ;-(
> Don't frown Arny, it makes your face a match for your ass.
Whatever, Mr. Manners.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Sorry Arny. Please put the missing "of" in the sentence and see if the
sentence works.
I've tried and I'm still having problems. That's what you get for
treating English as a "lossy" medium.
>
>> >> At least *this* thought experiment proved to be true.
>> >
>> >Never said it couldn't be. But in many cases the interface
>hardware+software
>> >costs more than the changer,
>
>> And in many cases, upgrading your computer to be able to hold 200 CDs
>> costs more than the computer itself. So what?
>
>In many cases 200 CD can be put on a PC with no upgrades at all.
Unless you just happen to have enough space on your hard drives. I'd
suggest that few people "just happen" to have such space.
>
>> and still needs a PC interface, and still
>> >requires that you dedicate your CD collection to the changer.
>> >http://www.wintektx.com/wintek10.htm says that their device is hooked to
>a
>> >PC via the serial interface. Of course if you have a PC with a modem and
>a
>> >serial mouse, you may have to add another one of those, as well! No
>matter
>> >how you look at it, you are stuck with wires running from your PC to your
>> >stereo system. Now, a few days ago this was a serious problem for you
>Dave?
>
>> Yes, it still can be. But it remains an option. However, your solution
>> *requires* such a hookup to access the 200 discs.
>
>Only if I want to play the discs on a stereo that is better than the PC all
>by itself.
And?
>
>BTW, have you ever heard a PC that didn't sound like crap?
>
>> Mine does not.
And?
>
>Mine doesn't require a CD changer or interface box.
No, it requires loads of memory. Not as cheap as my solution, no
matter how low storage prices are. I can spend as little as $200 plus
$199 plus shipping. And that includes the cables (except of elborate
room to room connections. And as you know, a little Belden does a long
way, right?
>
>> You are stuck either using the computer, or using whatever CD player
>> you have on hand, which I assume isn't a changer, because if it is,
>> then my solution has already been employed.
>
>In many people's worlds there are more PC's
There's that apostrophe problem again...
>than home stereos.
And in the real world, there are many many many more stand-alone home
stereos than PC enabled home stereos.
>
>> And you can still go ahead and employ your solution after getting a
>> large changer, one that is apparently able to be a COMPUTER CONTROLED
>> CD PLAYER (the title of this thread after all.) Then you have the best
>> of both worlds.
>
>Why keep hopping and skipping between two worlds when you can do it all in
>one?
There are many reasons.
>
>> >> If you weren't
>> >> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
>> >> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have the
>> >> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
>> >> software solutions.
>>
> >It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
>> >instead are hardware/software hybrids.
>
>> Well, simple hardware/software solutions in this case.
>
>That remains to be seen. *Everything* looks great on a web page.
Everything but *your* web page, where everything looks like shit.
Of course, I'm surprised that you're questioning a computer solution
to a problem.
>
>>As I said, I
>> haven't investigated *how* the current keyboard interface works. I'll
>> call the local Sony dealer though and find out for sure, especially
>> since I'll be in the market for a new one pretty soon. Could very well
>> already be an option, whether or not they choose to highlight it on
>> the web. And if it isn't, then a software solution is the answer.
>
>For you.
For anyone who chooses the changer route as opposed to storing their
CDs on a computer so that they can do a shuffle play.
>The world is full of people who don't have a CD changer and never
>will.
And the world is full of people who only use their computer to surf
the internet and get e-mail.
>
>> >http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
>> >controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer cable
>> >from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller, and
>> >then another cable to your CD changer.
>
>> You mean like hooking up my joystick? Boy, that's a tough one.
>
>Serial interfaces are often more complex than hooking up a joystick. Last
>time I looked you didn't have to set baud rate on joysticks.
Yeah, that's real tough. Suddenly computers are difficult when it
doesn't suit your purpose. Nice Arny.
From the Nirvis site:
"All Slink-e software automatically sets the appropriate serial port
baud rate, parity, stop bit, and handshaking settings so that you
don’t have to. However, it is your job to insure that the serial port
is properly configured in hardware and in the operating system. "
Also, I know people who have struggled through the burning process
(using burning as a generic term for transferring the data onto your
computer.) It might be easy for you but the learning curve can be a
bit difficult for *some.*
>
>> All I have to do is hook it up one time and download the data. Then
>> I'm free to employ the CD player wherever I wish since the main
>> purpose was to do automatic loading of the titles.
>
>Interesting question. Do these products download the titles to the CD
>changer or just control the CD changer remotely. I'll leave resolution of
>that question to you, Dave.
Yes. No.
>
>>Would it be worth
>> it to me to spend $250? Probably not. Not unless I wished to get as
>> elaborate as you want to by basing your audio system around your PC.
>
>Enjoy typing in all those song titles, Dave! Remember that IBM stands for
>"It's Better done Manually". ;-)
I do enjoy it Arny. I said so below.
>
>> But the option certainly is there. And who knows, by buying the right
>> Sony product, that capability might already be there.
>
>I the case of the solution I proposed it all just works.
Would you like to buy a consonant?
And I'll find out today whether or not the Sony solution "just works."
>
>> You see, just as you don't see a problem with spend 1 to 2 days
>> burning discs, I don't see spending the same time entering titles
>> because it puts me in touch with my CDs.
>
>Well that would be your personal preference Dave. I've always preferred to
>not reinvent the wheel
You *are* reinventing the wheel with your solution.
or do manual data entry of what is already on the
>computer.
Agreed. If I bought a new Sony and it was capable of doing it
automatically, I'd choose the automatic. And I'd have storage for 500
CDs for a little under a grand.
>
>>It's not time wasted, anymore
>> than you don't consider the burning time wasted.
>
>BTW you keep saying "burning". My solution includes no burning except if you
>want to clone some CD's.
Excuse me - copying the data onto your computer.
>
>> However, I *do* like for it to be easy to do, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT
>OF MY RECOMMENDING
>> SONY CD PLAYERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You, of course, turned it into
>polemics as usual.
>
>No Dave. I talked to someone else about a solution that anybody with a
>Windows PC, an internet connection, some free disk space
"some free disc space?"
and a sound card
>and a windows PC can implement in about half an hour
24-48 hrs. don't forget, you've got to put the CDs on your computer.
zero out-of-pocket
>expense. You butted in and started ranting about the joys of entering song
>titles with a dial on the front of an appliance.
No you raving asshole, *you* butted in with *your* solution. Look at
the times of the intial posts you nitwit. I asnswered the question as
asked. Here is the question:
Hello, I am looking for a large changer (or two) to hold my large CD
>collection. I am mostly interested in anything 200 disc and above, but info
>for any size would be apreciated. Durring the course of using my 5 disc
>changer and friends 100 disc changers, i have found the user interface
>particularly frusturating. Finding any given song is a pain, let alone
>programing a huge play list with the remote. A current part of my home
>stereo setup is my PC, which, hooked up to my stereo provides a great way to
>listen to both MP3s and CDs. Using my disk drive to play CDs automatically
>looks up their track names and album info on free online databases. In
>addition, using the computer, it is a snap to search for songs by tile or
>any given criteria, or to make long involved playlists. Now for my
>question: Are there any large capacity changers on the market that interface
>with a PC (or even Mac)? If not, do you know of any plans of releasing a
>product like this any time soon? Thanks for your help.
Now, I directly answered his several questions, noting when I wasn't
sure about a couple of things. Then *you* butted in, trying to move
him from what he was looking at (A LARGE CHANGER OR TWO) to *your*
solution. You actually never answered any of his questions except
through rebuttal to me.
You "loose" again Mr. Butinsky.
>
>> >> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
>
>> >Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly.
>
>> Wasn't blind at all. And it turned out to be right.
>
>Dave, it is retro-technology to be sure. Right down your alley it seems.
Right is right. Sorry, you "loose" again.
>
>> >don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you raised
>to
>> >my PC-based solution applies to this one as well.
>>
>> Yes. However, you originally said,
>
>> Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently using
>not
>> a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and
>> rare CD-text discs."
>
>> Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from
>codes
>> on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes (IME)
>> CD's going back to year one of CD availability."
>
>> Turns out Dave's plan has that solution too it seems if one so chooses.
>
>And pay extra bucks. People can get started with my solution and have it
>working with zero out of pocket expense, within the half-hour.
Nope. First they have to spend the 24-48 hrs to load the data onto
their computer. This person already had the capability to search for
titles on a single CD loaded into his computer. Hell, I can do that
too. You were offering a storage situation for massed CDs to replace a
changer.
>
>> These hardware/software
>> >solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software
>integration.
>> >They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They
>don't
>> >provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides.
>
>> Oh, so now it's a PC only solution. What happened to the other CD
>> players that you have around the house? We're back to the exclusivity
>> thing again.
>
>Hardly. I still have my physical CD library. Unlike your's its
Transposing aphostrohes again. Here's the 6th grade rule Arny, a
contraction requires an apostrophe. Possessive requires an apostrophe,
except with its and yours. Do you think you can keep that straight?
sitting in
>the original CD cases ready to be used where needed. Of course, since most
>of the PC's in the house are networked to the music database, we don't do
>that too much any more.
Didn't take you 20 minutes to do that either, now did it Arny? Tell
the truth for once.
>
>> Once you add >up all the costs, they might even cost more.
>
>People can get started with my solution for $0. out of pocket expense, and
>have it up and running in 30 minutes!
Liar.
>
>
>> Yeah, it goes from $500 to $800. Right. About what you said it would
>> cost to upgrade your computer in the best case scenario.
>
>In the best case scenario the incremental cost is as low as $0.00.
Liar. Storage has costs.
>
>> >> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my
>computer's >CD drive can.
>
>> >Hardly.
>
>> Yes.
>
>Prove it!
You already did - with your link. With the other solutions offered.
Are you saying that Peter was lying when he said: "there's a company
called nirvis that has everything you need. The software /rocks/ and
is free. They sell a box for $250 (i think) that lets your pc talk to
sony changers. HIGHLY RECCOMENDED, I use mine everyday. it catalogs
your collection for, using the cddb. check it out. www.nirvis.com"
>
>
>> To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
>> >need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
>
>> Of course you do you moron. Are you now saying that the Sony CD
>> players *can't* access cddb databases?
>
>I think you need to research that and come back with an answer.
See above.
>
>> >> Humility is a bitch.
>> >
>> >No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you in
>the
>> >nose! ;-(
>
>> Don't frown Arny, it makes your face a match for your ass.
>
>Whatever, Mr. Manners.
No, it looks like *you're* trying to be Mr. Manners you insolent slut.
Arny Krueger
> >Dave wrote:
I did. Let's see if you can do it.
> I've tried and I'm still having problems. That's what you get for
> treating English as a "lossy" medium.
Dave, isn't is interesting that when you get faced with a lot of on-topic
facts you can't deal with you start going baliistic over nit-picky things
about language. I guess I bring out the Middius in you! ;-)
> And?
Since when is that a proper sentence?
> >
> >BTW, have you ever heard a PC that didn't sound like crap?
> >
> >> Mine does not.
>
> And?
Since when is that a proper sentence?
> >Mine doesn't require a CD changer or interface box.
>
> No, it requires loads of memory.
Only in the view of those who are acutely technology-impaired.
> Not as cheap as my solution, no matter how low storage prices are. I can
spend as little as $200 plus
> $199 plus shipping. And that includes the cables (except of elborate
> room to room connections. And as you know, a little Belden does a long
> way, right?
A little Belden goes a long way, because either way the audio interface can
be digital.
> >> You are stuck either using the computer, or using whatever CD player
> >> you have on hand, which I assume isn't a changer, because if it is,
> >> then my solution has already been employed.
> >
> >In many people's worlds there are more PC's
>
> There's that apostrophe problem again...
IOW, you have nothing material to say.
> >than home stereos.
> And in the real world, there are many many many more stand-alone home
> stereos than PC enabled home stereos.
But as you have shown you can't rebut, there are alot of PCs.
> >> And you can still go ahead and employ your solution after getting a
> >> large changer, one that is apparently able to be a COMPUTER CONTROLED
> >> CD PLAYER (the title of this thread after all.) Then you have the best
> >> of both worlds.
> >
> >Why keep hopping and skipping between two worlds when you can do it all
in
> >one?
> There are many reasons.
Muscle tone? ;-)
>
> >> >> If you weren't
> >> >> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
> >> >> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have
the
> >> >> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
> >> >> software solutions.
> > >It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
> >> >instead are hardware/software hybrids.
> >
> >> Well, simple hardware/software solutions in this case.
> >That remains to be seen. *Everything* looks great on a web page.
> Everything but *your* web page, where everything looks like shit.
You need to wipe the feces out of your eyes.
> Of course, I'm surprised that you're questioning a computer solution to a
problem.
I'm weighing them.
> >>As I said, I
> >> haven't investigated *how* the current keyboard interface works. I'll
> >> call the local Sony dealer though and find out for sure, especially
> >> since I'll be in the market for a new one pretty soon. Could very well
> >> already be an option, whether or not they choose to highlight it on
> >> the web. And if it isn't, then a software solution is the answer.
> >
> >For you.
> For anyone who chooses the changer route as opposed to storing their CDs
on a computer so that they can do a shuffle play.
As if current software can't do that.
> >The world is full of people who don't have a CD changer and never will.
> And the world is full of people who only use their computer to surf
> the internet and get e-mail.
The percentage of those who use their PC's for listening to music is large
and growing.
> >> >http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
> >> >controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer
cable
> >> >from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller,
and
> >> >then another cable to your CD changer.
>
> >> You mean like hooking up my joystick? Boy, that's a tough one.
>
> >Serial interfaces are often more complex than hooking up a joystick. Last
> >time I looked you didn't have to set baud rate on joysticks.
> Yeah, that's real tough. Suddenly computers are difficult when it
> doesn't suit your purpose. Nice Arny.
Just pointing out a little flaw in your claims.
> From the Nirvis site:
> "All Slink-e software automatically sets the appropriate serial port
> baud rate, parity, stop bit, and handshaking settings so that you
> don't have to. However, it is your job to insure that the serial port
> is properly configured in hardware and in the operating system. "
Good.
> Also, I know people who have struggled through the burning process
> (using burning as a generic term for transferring the data onto your
> computer.) It might be easy for you but the learning curve can be a
> bit difficult for *some.*
I think you ought to stop misusing well-known computer words. "Burning" is
making CD-R's and CD-RW's for 99.999% of everybody. What you are describing
is called "loading" or "ripping".
> >> All I have to do is hook it up one time and download the data. Then
> >> I'm free to employ the CD player wherever I wish since the main
> >> purpose was to do automatic loading of the titles.
>
> >Interesting question. Do these products download the titles to the CD
> >changer or just control the CD changer remotely. I'll leave resolution of
> >that question to you, Dave.
> Yes. No.
IOW you don't know. OK.
> >>Would it be worth
> >> it to me to spend $250? Probably not. Not unless I wished to get as
> >> elaborate as you want to by basing your audio system around your PC.
> >
> >Enjoy typing in all those song titles, Dave! Remember that IBM stands for
> >"It's Better done Manually". ;-)
> I do enjoy it Arny. I said so below.
> >> But the option certainly is there. And who knows, by buying the right
> >> Sony product, that capability might already be there.
> >I the case of the solution I proposed it all just works.
> Would you like to buy a consonant?
Would you like to buy a pass to to the current year?
> And I'll find out today whether or not the Sony solution "just works."
> >> You see, just as you don't see a problem with spend 1 to 2 days
> >> burning discs, I don't see spending the same time entering titles
> >> because it puts me in touch with my CDs.
> >Well that would be your personal preference Dave. I've always preferred
to
> >not reinvent the wheel
> You *are* reinventing the wheel with your solution.
Hardly. It's off-the-shelf technology that millions have implemented.
> or do manual data entry of what is already on the
> >computer.
> Agreed. If I bought a new Sony and it was capable of doing it
> automatically, I'd choose the automatic. And I'd have storage for 500
> CDs for a little under a grand.
By the time you actaully get this all working and the titles manually
entered, hard drives might just be that cheap.
> >>It's not time wasted, anymore
> >> than you don't consider the burning time wasted.
> >BTW you keep saying "burning". My solution includes no burning except if
you
> >want to clone some CD's.
> Excuse me - copying the data onto your computer.
Well, its nice to see you learn the right words to use.
> >> However, I *do* like for it to be easy to do, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE
POINT
> >OF MY RECOMMENDING
> >> SONY CD PLAYERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You, of course, turned it into
> >polemics as usual.
> >No Dave. I talked to someone else about a solution that anybody with a
> >Windows PC, an internet connection, some free disk space
> "some free disc space?"
> and a sound card
> >and a windows PC can implement in about half an hour
> 24-48 hrs. don't forget, you've got to put the CDs on your computer.
I can probably put CD's into a computer about as fast as you can enter the
song titles with a shuttle ring!
The solution I suggested addressed his needs.
> Now, I directly answered his several questions, noting when I wasn't
> sure about a couple of things.
No actually, you didn't know about PC or Mac interfaces until yesterday.
> Then *you* butted in, trying to move
> him from what he was looking at (A LARGE CHANGER OR TWO) to *your*
> solution. You actually never answered any of his questions except
> through rebuttal to me.
That would seem to be because of the direction his posts went.
> You "loose" again Mr. Butinsky.
Hardly. You really had nothing *real* to offer him until yesterday. The
solution I pointed out would have met his needs at the point I posted it.
> >> >> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
>> >Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly.
> >> Wasn't blind at all. And it turned out to be right.
> >Dave, it is retro-technology to be sure. Right down your alley it seems.
> Right is right. Sorry, you "loose" again.
Hardly. Not my fault I'm into current technology more than editing
throw-away NG posts.
> >> >don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you
raised to
> >> >my PC-based solution applies to this one as well.
> >> Yes. However, you originally said,
> >> Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently
using not
> >> a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and
> >> rare CD-text discs."
> >> Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from
codes
> >> on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes
(IME)
> >> CD's going back to year one of CD availability."
> >> Turns out Dave's plan has that solution too it seems if one so
chooses.
> >And pay extra bucks. People can get started with my solution and have it
> >working with zero out of pocket expense, within the half-hour.
> Nope. First they have to spend the 24-48 hrs to load the data onto
> their computer.
Not to get started. How long do you think its going to take to enter
This person already had the capability to search for
> titles on a single CD loaded into his computer. Hell, I can do that
> too. You were offering a storage situation for massed CDs to replace a
changer.
Don't forget that my solution frees the CDs for other uses or archiving.
> >> These hardware/software
> >> >solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software
> >integration.
> >> >They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They
> >don't
> >> >provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides.
> >
> >> Oh, so now it's a PC only solution. What happened to the other CD
> >> players that you have around the house? We're back to the exclusivity
> >> thing again.
> >Hardly. I still have my physical CD library. Unlike your's its
> Transposing aphostrohes again. Here's the 6th grade rule Arny, a
> contraction requires an apostrophe. Possessive requires an apostrophe,
> except with its and yours. Do you think you can keep that straight?
Dave, I think that we all can see that you thow a spazzie about punctuation
when you start getting cornered by the facts.
> sitting in
> >the original CD cases ready to be used where needed. Of course, since
most
> >of the PC's in the house are networked to the music database, we don't do
> >that too much any more.
> Didn't take you 20 minutes to do that either, now did it Arny? Tell the
truth for once.
I built the trial system in about 12 minutes. From then on I was able to add
songs as I was listening to others.
> >> Once you add >up all the costs, they might even cost more.
>
> >People can get started with my solution for $0. out of pocket expense,
and
> >have it up and running in 30 minutes!
> Liar.
Dave, you always say that when you start getting cornered. Next, the insults
and profanity. You are so predicable!
> >> Yeah, it goes from $500 to $800. Right. About what you said it would
> >> cost to upgrade your computer in the best case scenario.
>
> >In the best case scenario the incremental cost is as low as $0.00.
> Liar. Storage has costs.
It has benefits, too. Fast. Allows you to use your CD's someplace else or
physically archive them.
> >> >> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my
> >computer's >CD drive can.
> >> >Hardly.
> >
> Yes.
> >
> >Prove it!
> You already did - with your link. With the other solutions offered.
It's not the Sony player that is accessing the database. AFAIK, the
downloads from CDDB stay on the host computer and the host just slaves the
changer.
> Are you saying that Peter was lying when he said: "there's a company
> called nirvis that has everything you need. The software /rocks/ and
> is free. They sell a box for $250 (i think) that lets your pc talk to
> sony changers. HIGHLY RECCOMENDED, I use mine everyday. it catalogs
> your collection for, using the cddb. check it out. www.nirvis.com"
I'm glad it works for him! However, I don't see where he said that the
software downloads song and album titles to the changer.
Given the elapsed time between the initial requrest and his post it looks he
was way over a day late.
> >> To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
> >> >need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
> >
> >> Of course you do you moron. Are you now saying that the Sony CD
> >> players *can't* access cddb databases?
> >
> >I think you need to research that and come back with an answer.
>
> See above.
As you admitted, your research has impressed you so much that you have no
immediate plans to implment the system you recommend.
> >> >> Humility is a bitch.
>
> >> >No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you
in the
> >> >nose! ;-(
> >> Don't frown Arny, it makes your face a match for your ass.
> >Whatever, Mr. Manners.
> No, it looks like *you're* trying to be Mr. Manners you insolent slut.
Thanks again, Mr. Manners, I mean Weil. I hope you find some help for your
problems with controlling your emotions.
Paul Bamborough
Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
>>>>> don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
Dave Weil wrote
>>>> I'm really having trouble reading this sentence. Is this Caribbean?
>>> Dave, If a missing "of" eliminates your abiltiy to parse a sentence
>>> you really need to learn to decode less-than-perfect English or
>>> stay out of the real world.
>> Sorry Arny. Please put the missing "of" in the sentence and see if
>> the sentence works.
> I did. Let's see if you can do it.
Well...
of I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I of hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't of looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked of at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at of the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the of spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec of sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets of for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for of *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these of, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, of but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but of I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I of
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't of a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a of lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot of mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards of as standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as of standard features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard of features or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features of or options.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I
don't a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options of.
Dear Mr K.
Which one was it?
And the point? If you could wipe the red mist from your eyes for a second or
two, you might just learn to understand one fundamental thing:
To argue reflexively with abolutely every point that your opponent makes, no
matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to do so even when you
are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an obstinate, belligerent fool.
You do it over and over and over again, and as a result all of your *valid*
points get compeltely *lost* in the miasma of pointless argument.
Look at the current series of posts. I agree with you more than with Dave Weil
about the basic issues (though I think you are entirely missing a key point).
At least, I think I agree.... but, as ususal, you've made the thread completely
and utterly unreadable, so I can't follow it any more and, frankly, I don't give
a damn. And I don't suppose anyone else does either.
p
Arny Krueger
< redundant stuff clipped>
> Dear Mr K.
> Which one was it?
How many of them mean anything that is really different from most of the
rest?
> And the point? If you could wipe the red mist from your eyes for a second
or
> two, you might just learn to understand one fundamental thing:
> To argue reflexively with abolutely every point that your opponent makes,
no
> matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to do so even when
you
> are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an obstinate, belligerent
fool.
> You do it over and over and over again, and as a result all of your
*valid*
> points get compeltely *lost* in the miasma of pointless argument.
This is a typical Banboroughian false claim. I have not argued every point
that my opponent made.
When you respect for the truth comes back, please post again.
dave weil
wrote:
OK.
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I don't
_of_a lot mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
Nope. Doesn't work.
Let's try:
I hvaen't looked at the spec sheets for *all* of these, but I don't a
>lot _of_ mention of keyboards as standard features or options.
Nope, doesn't work.
Any other suggestions? Why don't you print *your* sentence?
>
>> I've tried and I'm still having problems. That's what you get for
>> treating English as a "lossy" medium.
>
>Dave, isn't is interesting that when you get faced with a lot of on-topic
>facts you can't deal with you start going baliistic over nit-picky things
>about language.
Yeah, a little thing like language.
It's not a "proper sentence." It's a commonly used short form
question.
>
>> >
>> >BTW, have you ever heard a PC that didn't sound like crap?
>> >
>> >> Mine does not.
>>
>> And?
>
>Since when is that a proper sentence?
It's not a "proper sentence." It's a commonly used short form
question.
>
>
>> >Mine doesn't require a CD changer or interface box.
>>
>> No, it requires loads of memory.
>
>Only in the view of those who are acutely technology-impaired.
No, memory is memory, regardless of the user's ability with
technology. Memory is not yet, to my knowledge, free.
>
>> Not as cheap as my solution, no matter how low storage prices are. I can
>spend as little as $200 plus
>> $199 plus shipping. And that includes the cables (except of elborate
>> room to room connections. And as you know, a little Belden does a long
>> way, right?
>
>A little Belden goes a long way, because either way the audio interface can
>be digital.
>
>
>> >> You are stuck either using the computer, or using whatever CD player
>> >> you have on hand, which I assume isn't a changer, because if it is,
>> >> then my solution has already been employed.
>> >
>> >In many people's worlds there are more PC's
>>
>> There's that apostrophe problem again...
>
>IOW, you have nothing material to say.
No, just that you are English-challenged. But that's not news.
>
>> >than home stereos.
>
>> And in the real world, there are many many many more stand-alone home
>> stereos than PC enabled home stereos.
>
>But as you have shown you can't rebut, there are alot of PCs.
And there are "alot" of changers.
*You* can't rebut my point that the vast majority of people DO NOT
have their stereos controlled by their PCs.
>
>
>> >> And you can still go ahead and employ your solution after getting a
>> >> large changer, one that is apparently able to be a COMPUTER CONTROLED
>> >> CD PLAYER (the title of this thread after all.) Then you have the best
>> >> of both worlds.
>> >
>> >Why keep hopping and skipping between two worlds when you can do it all
>in
>> >one?
>
>> There are many reasons.
>
>Muscle tone? ;-)
>
>>
>> >> >> If you weren't
>> >> >> so busy pushing your conception of the perfect CD system, you would
>> >> >> have probably proposed the same possibilities, since once you have
>the
>> >> >> keyboard interface to the computer, everything else is just simple
>> >> >> software solutions.
>
>> > >It looks to me like *none* of these are "simple software solutions" but
>> >> >instead are hardware/software hybrids.
>> >
>> >> Well, simple hardware/software solutions in this case.
>
>> >That remains to be seen. *Everything* looks great on a web page.
>
>> Everything but *your* web page, where everything looks like shit.
>
>You need to wipe the feces out of your eyes.
>
>> Of course, I'm surprised that you're questioning a computer solution to a
>problem.
>
>I'm weighing them.
For your muscle tone?
>
>> >>As I said, I
>> >> haven't investigated *how* the current keyboard interface works. I'll
>> >> call the local Sony dealer though and find out for sure, especially
>> >> since I'll be in the market for a new one pretty soon. Could very well
>> >> already be an option, whether or not they choose to highlight it on
>> >> the web. And if it isn't, then a software solution is the answer.
>> >
>> >For you.
>
>> For anyone who chooses the changer route as opposed to storing their CDs
>on a computer so that they can do a shuffle play.
>
>As if current software can't do that.
Nobody is denying that it can't.
>
>> >The world is full of people who don't have a CD changer and never will.
>
>> And the world is full of people who only use their computer to surf
>> the internet and get e-mail.
>
>The percentage of those who use their PC's for listening to music is large
>and growing.
Apostrophe challenged again I see.
But the number that use their PCs to control their home stereo systems
is still small.
>
>
>> >> >http://www.nirvis.com describes their product as a "serial port based
>> >> >controller". That means that to use it, you need to run a computer
>cable
>> >> >from your PC's serial port (if a free one exists) to the controller,
>and
>> >> >then another cable to your CD changer.
>>
>> >> You mean like hooking up my joystick? Boy, that's a tough one.
>>
>> >Serial interfaces are often more complex than hooking up a joystick. Last
>> >time I looked you didn't have to set baud rate on joysticks.
>
>> Yeah, that's real tough. Suddenly computers are difficult when it
>> doesn't suit your purpose. Nice Arny.
>
>Just pointing out a little flaw in your claims.
You mean your own flaw. Now computers aren't "user friendly."
>
>> From the Nirvis site:
>
>> "All Slink-e software automatically sets the appropriate serial port
>> baud rate, parity, stop bit, and handshaking settings so that you
>> don't have to. However, it is your job to insure that the serial port
>> is properly configured in hardware and in the operating system. "
>
>Good.
Which denies your previous claim of complexity.
>
>> Also, I know people who have struggled through the burning process
>> (using burning as a generic term for transferring the data onto your
>> computer.) It might be easy for you but the learning curve can be a
>> bit difficult for *some.*
>
>I think you ought to stop misusing well-known computer words. "Burning" is
>making CD-R's and CD-RW's for 99.999% of everybody. What you are describing
>is called "loading" or "ripping".
Oh shut up. Ripping then. Loading then. Datafucking then.
>
>> >> All I have to do is hook it up one time and download the data. Then
>> >> I'm free to employ the CD player wherever I wish since the main
>> >> purpose was to do automatic loading of the titles.
>>
>> >Interesting question. Do these products download the titles to the CD
>> >changer or just control the CD changer remotely. I'll leave resolution of
>> >that question to you, Dave.
>
>> Yes. No.
>
>IOW you don't know. OK.
I answered your question. Yes and no is pretty unambiguous. Of course,
in *your* world, they are quibble terms.
>
>> >>Would it be worth
>> >> it to me to spend $250? Probably not. Not unless I wished to get as
>> >> elaborate as you want to by basing your audio system around your PC.
>> >
>> >Enjoy typing in all those song titles, Dave! Remember that IBM stands for
>> >"It's Better done Manually". ;-)
>
>> I do enjoy it Arny. I said so below.
>
>> >> But the option certainly is there. And who knows, by buying the right
>> >> Sony product, that capability might already be there.
>
>> >I the case of the solution I proposed it all just works.
>
>> Would you like to buy a consonant?
>
>Would you like to buy a pass to to the current year?
Not from a saleshack snakeoil salesman like you.
>
>> And I'll find out today whether or not the Sony solution "just works."
>
>> >> You see, just as you don't see a problem with spend 1 to 2 days
>> >> burning discs, I don't see spending the same time entering titles
>> >> because it puts me in touch with my CDs.
>
>> >Well that would be your personal preference Dave. I've always preferred
>to
>> >not reinvent the wheel
>
>> You *are* reinventing the wheel with your solution.
>
>Hardly. It's off-the-shelf technology that millions have implemented.
And a CD changer is an off-the-shelf solution that millions have
implemented. And expanding it is easy as we have seen.
>
>> or do manual data entry of what is already on the
>> >computer.
>
>> Agreed. If I bought a new Sony and it was capable of doing it
>> automatically, I'd choose the automatic. And I'd have storage for 500
>> CDs for a little under a grand.
>
>By the time you actaully get this all working and the titles manually
>entered, hard drives might just be that cheap.
If I chose the $200 option, it would take 47 hrs less than *your*
solution.
>
>> >>It's not time wasted, anymore
>> >> than you don't consider the burning time wasted.
>
>> >BTW you keep saying "burning". My solution includes no burning except if
>you
>> >want to clone some CD's.
>
>> Excuse me - copying the data onto your computer.
>
>Well, its nice to see you learn the right words to use.
At least I correct my mistakes. Unlike you who continues to butcher
the English language, either out of stupidity or spite.
>
>> >> However, I *do* like for it to be easy to do, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE
>POINT
>> >OF MY RECOMMENDING
>> >> SONY CD PLAYERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You, of course, turned it into
>> >polemics as usual.
>
>> >No Dave. I talked to someone else about a solution that anybody with a
>> >Windows PC, an internet connection, some free disk space
>
>> "some free disc space?"
>
>> and a sound card
>> >and a windows PC can implement in about half an hour
>
>> 24-48 hrs. don't forget, you've got to put the CDs on your computer.
>
>I can probably put CD's into a computer about as fast as you can enter the
>song titles with a shuttle ring!
Nope. You said it takes a certain amount of time. 1/3rd to 1/8th the
time it takes to play the CD. It takes me about 1/40th. The Cd is
loaded and playing, and the title entered before the first song
reaches the bridge.
Bullshit. HE WAS LOOKING FOR A CHANGER. His reasons are PREFERENCE.
Face it. You misspoke when you accused me of butting into this thread,
when it was *you* who did the butting in and didn't answer the
question as it was posed.
>
>> Now, I directly answered his several questions, noting when I wasn't
>> sure about a couple of things.
>
>
>No actually, you didn't know about PC or Mac interfaces until yesterday.
Nope. I maintained that the Sony CD changer could be interfaced with a
PC. It has been proven to be true, which answered his question. Sorry.
>
>> Then *you* butted in, trying to move
>> him from what he was looking at (A LARGE CHANGER OR TWO) to *your*
>> solution. You actually never answered any of his questions except
>> through rebuttal to me.
>
>That would seem to be because of the direction his posts went.
He only posted once. where are the other posts.
He already admitted that he uses the single player on his computer to
access databases on the internet. HE WANTED A CHANGER. For whatever
reason.
>
>
>> You "loose" again Mr. Butinsky.
>
>Hardly. You really had nothing *real* to offer him until yesterday. The
>solution I pointed out would have met his needs at the point I posted it.
Nope. His "needs" were getting a CD changer/s that could interface
with his computer.
>
>> >> >> I notice too that you didn't say, gee Dave, I guess you were right.
>
>>> >Well, Dave you weren't right. You were speculating blindly.
>
>> >> Wasn't blind at all. And it turned out to be right.
>
>> >Dave, it is retro-technology to be sure. Right down your alley it seems.
>
>> Right is right. Sorry, you "loose" again.
>
>Hardly. Not my fault I'm into current technology more than editing
>throw-away NG posts.
Right is right. Nice avoidance though. It's worthy of Ferstler.
>
>> >> >don't seem to have realized that many of the objections that you
>raised to
>> >> >my PC-based solution applies to this one as well.
>
>> >> Yes. However, you originally said,
>
>> >> Dave's plan - all track and CD titles are hand-entered, apparently
>using not
>> >> a keyboard, but a "Shuttle Ring"; unless this is one of those new and
>> >> rare CD-text discs."
>
>> >> Arny's plan - all track and CD titles are automatically generated from
>codes
>> >> on the CD and one of the CDDB databases on the web - this includes
>(IME)
>> >> CD's going back to year one of CD availability."
>
>> >> Turns out Dave's plan has that solution too it seems if one so
>chooses.
>
>> >And pay extra bucks. People can get started with my solution and have it
>> >working with zero out of pocket expense, within the half-hour.
>
>> Nope. First they have to spend the 24-48 hrs to load the data onto
>> their computer.
>
>Not to get started. How long do you think its going to take to enter
Uhhhh, enter what? How long do you think it takes you to load 200 CDs
into your computer?
>
>This person already had the capability to search for
>> titles on a single CD loaded into his computer. Hell, I can do that
>> too. You were offering a storage situation for massed CDs to replace a
>changer.
>
>Don't forget that my solution frees the CDs for other uses or archiving.
Ahhhh, you finally get the apostrophe right. Good! You're making
progress. Maybe you won't need summer school to get to the 7th grade.
Who cares about "archiving." It's non-volatile data. It's its own
archive.
>
>> >> These hardware/software
>> >> >solutions require that *somebody* does some hardware/software
>> >integration.
>> >> >They require a cable connection from the PC to the stereo system. They
>> >don't
>> >> >provide many of the benefits that my PC-only solution provides.
>> >
>> >> Oh, so now it's a PC only solution. What happened to the other CD
>> >> players that you have around the house? We're back to the exclusivity
>> >> thing again.
>
>> >Hardly. I still have my physical CD library. Unlike your's its
>
>> Transposing aphostrohes again. Here's the 6th grade rule Arny, a
>> contraction requires an apostrophe. Possessive requires an apostrophe,
>> except with its and yours. Do you think you can keep that straight?
>
>Dave, I think that we all can see that you thow a spazzie about punctuation
>when you start getting cornered by the facts.
Nah, it's just a little thing like THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
>
>> sitting in
>> >the original CD cases ready to be used where needed. Of course, since
>most
>> >of the PC's in the house are networked to the music database, we don't do
>> >that too much any more.
>
>> Didn't take you 20 minutes to do that either, now did it Arny? Tell the
>truth for once.
>
>I built the trial system in about 12 minutes. From then on I was able to add
>songs as I was listening to others.
Ahhh, but that would take 100% of the time that it takes to play a CD,
not the 1/3 to 1/5th that you were talking about before.
>
>
>> >> Once you add >up all the costs, they might even cost more.
>>
>> >People can get started with my solution for $0. out of pocket expense,
>and
>> >have it up and running in 30 minutes!
>
>> Liar.
>
>Dave, you always say that when you start getting cornered. Next, the insults
>and profanity. You are so predicable!
You *are* a liar. To get your database filled, it takes up to 2 days
of burning (*if* you are transferring continuously.)
>
>> >> Yeah, it goes from $500 to $800. Right. About what you said it would
>> >> cost to upgrade your computer in the best case scenario.
>>
>> >In the best case scenario the incremental cost is as low as $0.00.
>
>> Liar. Storage has costs.
>
>It has benefits, too. Fast. Allows you to use your CD's someplace else or
>physically archive them.
Ooops, backsliding again. Your brain apparently can't handle new
information. It's CDs! CDs!
And who cares about physically archiving them? You already *have* them
"archived" wherever they sit.
>
>> >> >> The Sony CD players *can* access cddb databases just like my
>> >computer's >CD drive can.
>
>> >> >Hardly.
>> >
>> Yes.
>> >
>> >Prove it!
>
>> You already did - with your link. With the other solutions offered.
>
>It's not the Sony player that is accessing the database. AFAIK, the
>downloads from CDDB stay on the host computer and the host just slaves the
>changer.
Who cares? You turn on your CD changer and it accesses the database.
Just like a CD player in a computer accesses the database that you
have built.
>
>> Are you saying that Peter was lying when he said: "there's a company
>> called nirvis that has everything you need. The software /rocks/ and
>> is free. They sell a box for $250 (i think) that lets your pc talk to
>> sony changers. HIGHLY RECCOMENDED, I use mine everyday. it catalogs
>> your collection for, using the cddb. check it out. www.nirvis.com"
>
>I'm glad it works for him! However, I don't see where he said that the
>software downloads song and album titles to the changer.
What part of catalogs your collection has escaped you. It doesn't
matter whether it sits on your computer or on your CD player. The
result is the same.
>
>Given the elapsed time between the initial requrest and his post it looks he
>was way over a day late.
So? Does it matter?
>
>> >> To access CDDB with these products it still looks like you still
>> >> >need to set up a link between a PC and a stereo system.
>> >
>> >> Of course you do you moron. Are you now saying that the Sony CD
>> >> players *can't* access cddb databases?
>> >
>> >I think you need to research that and come back with an answer.
>>
>> See above.
>
>As you admitted, your research has impressed you so much that you have no
>immediate plans to implment the system you recommend.
Nope. Everything has its priorities.
>
>> >> >> Humility is a bitch.
>>
>> >> >No, Mr. Weil, its something that you wouldn't recognize if it bit you
>in the
>> >> >nose! ;-(
>
>> >> Don't frown Arny, it makes your face a match for your ass.
>
>> >Whatever, Mr. Manners.
>
>> No, it looks like *you're* trying to be Mr. Manners you insolent slut.
>
>Thanks again, Mr. Manners, I mean Weil. I hope you find some help for your
>problems with controlling your emotions.
I'm just doing it for your benefit since that's what you seem to want.
My emotions are just fine. This need of yours to be abused and to push
people to abuse you is another matter entirely. I would suggest that
you seek help at the soonest possible juncture because you cause
yourself or your family any harm.
Paul Bamborough
Arny Krueger wrote in message ...
Paul Bamborough spewed:
> < redundant stuff clipped
>> Dear Mr K.
>> Which one was it?
> How many of them mean anything that is really different from most of
> the rest?
>> And the point? If you could wipe the red mist from your eyes for a
>> second or two, you might just learn to understand one fundamental
>> thing:
>> To argue reflexively with abolutely every point that your opponent
>> makes, no matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to
>> do so even when you are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an
>> obstinate, belligerent fool. You do it over and over and over again,
>> and as a result all of your *valid* points get compeltely *lost* in
>> the miasma of pointless argument.
> This is a typical Banboroughian false claim. I have not argued every
> point that my opponent made.
> When you respect for the truth comes back, please post again.
Cor Blimey, Arny, have you absolutely no self-awareness at all? Or are you
actually making a joke at your own expense?
Right. With no implications about my respect for the truth, which is intact,
thank you for asking:
"To argue reflexively with *virtually* every point that your opponent
makes, no matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to
do so even when you are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an
obstinate, belligerent fool. You do it over and over and over again,
and as a result all of your *valid* points get completely *lost* in
the miasma of pointless argument."
Now, Arny, try reading what I said and (if you want) responding to it usefully,
instead of simply picking an irrelevant nit and thus reinforcing my point.
And, why *do* you mangle posts beyond all recognition? In the current case, it
can't be to hide the poverty of your arguments, because (on the whole) you are
right.
I notice that you have invoked me over in another thread. Here too, you are
simply digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole entirely of your own
devising. You picked a pointless fight where you were in the wrong, and are now
squirming like a worm on a hook.
Why do you do this?
p
Arny Krueger
"Paul Bamborough" <pa...@bamborough.com> wrote in message
news:uPXS4.62414$fV.38...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote in message ...
> Paul Bamborough spewed:
>
> > < redundant stuff clipped
>
>
> >> Which one was it?
>
> > the rest?
>
> >> second or two, you might just learn to understand one fundamental
> >> thing:
>
> >> To argue reflexively with abolutely every point that your opponent
> >> makes, no matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to
> >> do so even when you are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an
> >> obstinate, belligerent fool. You do it over and over and over again,
> >> and as a result all of your *valid* points get compeltely *lost* in
> >> the miasma of pointless argument.
>
>
> > point that my opponent made.
>
> > When you respect for the truth comes back, please post again.
>
> Cor Blimey, Arny, have you absolutely no self-awareness at all?
Obviously you have no mirrors, and no sense of fairness, Mr. Bamborough.
> Or are you actually making a joke at your own expense?
The joke is you Mr. Bamnbrough and your ongoing vendetta.
>
> Right. With no implications about my respect for the truth, which is
intact,
> thank you for asking:
> "To argue reflexively with *virtually* every point that your opponent
> makes, no matter if it is completely unimportant or humorous, and to
> do so even when you are obviously wrong, just makes you look like an
> obstinate, belligerent fool. You do it over and over and over again,
> and as a result all of your *valid* points get completely *lost* in
> the miasma of pointless argument."
>
> Now, Arny, try reading what I said and (if you want) responding to it
usefully,
> instead of simply picking an irrelevant nit and thus reinforcing my
point.
It's simple Mr. Bamborough. The discusion between Mr. Weil and I is not as
one-sided as you seem to be fond of misrepresenting.
> And, why *do* you mangle posts beyond all recognition?
Asked and answered.
BTW, our discussion is again, over, probably for weeks and months.
Paul Bamborough
Arny Krueger wrote in message <7CYS4.71105$h01.5...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>> Arny Krueger wrote...
>> Paul Bamborough spewed:
>> > < redundant stuff clipped
>> Now, Arny, try reading what I said and (if you want) responding to it
>> usefully, instead of simply picking an irrelevant nit and
>> thus reinforcing my point.
>It's simple Mr. Bamborough. The discusion between Mr. Weil and I is not as
>one-sided as you seem to be fond of misrepresenting.
But Arny, I have said twice that I mainly *agree* with you. As far as I can
tell from the increasingly mangled thread, Dave Weil is arguing from a position
of inexperience, and therefore his argument is partial.
There is no doubt at all that music stored on hard disk is going to form a
substantial part of everyone's system at some point in the future (and that has
been clear since at least 1980), and that the future is almost upon us.
However, it's not at all clear what form of machinery the hard disks are going
to be hiding in, and what the relationship between the various sources and
storage media is going to be.
PCs as currently constituted do have a number of disadvantages for general
consumer use. These are obvious, and I'm not going to bother to repeat the
list. But it is quite clear that something has to evolve further before we have
a good answer. There is probably a fruitful discussion to be had here.
But, as I said:
>> And, why *do* you mangle posts beyond all recognition?
>Asked and answered.
No, never asked by me before, and certainly never answered by you. You are
doing *yourself* a disservice here, because you are drowning your own reasonable
arguments in semantic bilge. It isn't necessary for anyone familiar with
computers; you are familiar with computers; therefore, it isn't necessary for
you; therefore, you are harming yourself unnecessarily.
>BTW, our discussion is again, over, probably for weeks and months.
Something I find interesting: you don't answer my substantive questions, of
which I have accumulated quite a list over the last few months. Instead, over
and over again, you focus on the inessentials, pretend that that was all there
was, and then duck out.
It's a cowardly way of proceeding, isn't it?
p
dave weil
<pa...@bamborough.com> wrote:
>
>Arny Krueger wrote in message <7CYS4.71105$h01.5...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>...
>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote...
>
>>> Paul Bamborough spewed:
>>> > < redundant stuff clipped
>
>>> Now, Arny, try reading what I said and (if you want) responding to it
>>> usefully, instead of simply picking an irrelevant nit and
>>> thus reinforcing my point.
>
>>It's simple Mr. Bamborough. The discusion between Mr. Weil and I is not as
>>one-sided as you seem to be fond of misrepresenting.
>
>But Arny, I have said twice that I mainly *agree* with you. As far as I can
>tell from the increasingly mangled thread, Dave Weil is arguing from a position
>of inexperience, and therefore his argument is partial.
>
>There is no doubt at all that music stored on hard disk is going to form a
>substantial part of everyone's system at some point in the future (and that has
>been clear since at least 1980), and that the future is almost upon us.
>However, it's not at all clear what form of machinery the hard disks are going
>to be hiding in, and what the relationship between the various sources and
>storage media is going to be.
>
Even though I'm sure that you realize this, my argument with Arny
isn't over this fundamental point.
I have let this fairly pointless exchange expand to once again show to
what lengths Arny will go to prove that he is right about things.
>PCs as currently constituted do have a number of disadvantages for general
>consumer use. These are obvious, and I'm not going to bother to repeat the
>list. But it is quite clear that something has to evolve further before we have
>a good answer. There is probably a fruitful discussion to be had here.
>
>But, as I said:
>
>>> And, why *do* you mangle posts beyond all recognition?
>
>>Asked and answered.
>
>
>No, never asked by me before, and certainly never answered by you. You are
>doing *yourself* a disservice here, because you are drowning your own reasonable
>arguments in semantic bilge.
Yes, it's a wonder to behold, isn't it?
It isn't necessary for anyone familiar with
>computers; you are familiar with computers; therefore, it isn't necessary for
>you; therefore, you are harming yourself unnecessarily.
>
>>BTW, our discussion is again, over, probably for weeks and months.
>
>
>Something I find interesting: you don't answer my substantive questions, of
>which I have accumulated quite a list over the last few months. Instead, over
>and over again, you focus on the inessentials, pretend that that was all there
>was, and then duck out.
>
>It's a cowardly way of proceeding, isn't it?
>
>p
For the record, I happen to believe that putting some of your library
on your computer can be quite useful, IF, you have the time to do the
copying, you have the resources (i.e. money or available memory) to
tie up the requisite memory, and if you have the desire to manage such
files.
What Arny fails to realize is that:
a. The orginal poster wasn't all that interested in such a solution
for any number of reasons. It might have been not having the memory on
his computer and not wanting to buy more or free up what he had - I
for instance, only have about 2 megs left on a very crowded disk.
b. Mangling the English language is bad for business. And the repeated
mangling, even after being shown the errors of your ways, just makes
you look obstinate and foolish. Occasional typos aren't the point.
It's the basic denial of even the most fundamental grammatical points.
c. Self-fulfilling prophesies usually come true.