Travis In Austin

It has taken a long time, a lot work, but thank to many on this forum with their ideas, support, and encouragement, the prototype of my new system is done. This system, which you will see is complety matched, eq'd and synch'd,, front end to speake,provide the most encompassing listening experience known to mankind. You cannot a deeper sense of the music. Also notice, I have gone with Analog source (Ampex AG 440 2 Track). Digital broke down under demands of this most transparent and revealing of all systems. I invite you to take a look and your comments. (Unfortunately, due to the high cost of this venture, I was forced to take on a sponsor, an outfit in Chicago that is into baseball and gum. This has resulted in some compromise in the design on my part, however, I believe the orginal concept and specs for the most part have been maintained.) adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/wrigley_5_gum_rain http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/wrigley_5_gum_rain Travis

Stunning, and the speakers don't look bad either. Travis

It is like the Mythbuster guys said at the end, some people simply cannot wrap their heads around the fact that airplanes do not derive power from the ground like cars do. They even did an example with the car on the conveyer and then applied thrust (a hand) from behind. I am the first to admit I was like the pilot who thought for sure it would not take off. Then someone pointed out to me that the problem was really asking. Flawed? The only flaws could be that the speeds were not matched with precision, or that the plane was lighter then normal, lower take off speed, etc. However, the experiments showed that the plane moves forward regardless of the speed of the converyer belt. Thats the whole point, if the plane moves forward it takes off if you can make the stuff big enough or long enough. Now what I want to know is how many Peter Piper pecked, on a conveyor belt while chasing a woodchuck. Travis

I'm a member, and they sound great. Josh, let me know if you are ever coming to Austin. Travis

Roger, I'm really glad to see that you are planning on going. I was about 90% sure that I was going to go up with Luther, but now that I see that you are going I will seal the deal. I will be bringing Miss Rose's bottle of Booker's that I never managed to get sent off to her. Travis

You forgot that she is the smart one in the family too. She's an international lawyer and she ordered you Jubs. Travis

Chris, You are in luck, two very knowledgable people live in GA that can answer a lot of your questions. They are both very familar with the Klipsch products, specifically Jubs, and can provide you with a lot of information. One is Mark1101, he lives near Athens, the other is JWCullison, he lives in Funkbrain (it's a sub of Atlanta). Travis

Gravity takes over the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, whether it is a bb or a 300 Wby Mag, If it is fired level to the ground it drops at the same rate as any object dropped from that same height regardless of the speed it travels. Travis

A bullet, fired perfectly level to the earth, will fall to earth in the same time as if the bullet were dropped from a fix point. In other words, if you fire a bullet from a barrel 10' off the ground, that is level to the ground, and you drop a bullet from 10' at the exact same time, they will hit the ground at the exact same time. Thrust alone will not keep a bullet "airborne" longer then simply dropping one from a fixed height, it has to have a positive trajectory in order to put gravity in issue. I think your other points are right on. Trust is one factor, but if it is the main one, like with the Harrier, thrust is converted from verticle to horizontal in a smooth transition to make a runway immaterial. However, there are compromises made with the airfoil used, which limits top speed in favor of more lift, more forgiving stall charistics, etc. It will take off. Travis

How do we know that? That's based on sales no doubt, which would be the usual way to do it. Is that based on Harmon International (stock went down 26% yesterday) being counted in pieces as opposed to adding them all up, JBL, JBL Pro, Infinity, and Revel? Travis

How cool is Audio Classics, this appears at the top of there home page http://www.audioclassics.com/: In his Playback article last month, Mike Klipsch highlighted the importance of exclusive technologies and Klipsch's latest skew horn patent. Well, Fox 59 in Indianapolis found interest in the topic and paid a visit to Klipsch's technology center to see what they're all about. Both Mike and Roy Delgado, the skew horn designer, were interviewed on camera. Watch the clip in Quicktime or Windows Media Video. I have seen the links discussed previously on the forum, but I did not realize that Audio Classics had this displayed right up front on their homepage. Travis

Travis I know, and to think they bought that part of you not having a digital camera, when in fact everyone knows that you can't take a photo of your speakers because of the vortexs. It is widely known the vortex's cause distortion of digital images including, but not limited to: if one looks very closely you can make out the image of Bob Dylan in many photos in the presence of a real Vortex. Travis

I have heard them 15' apart and 10' back and they sounded beautiful. Mike, 16' is plenty wide. Travis

Hi Tom,email sent Bill I believe I predicted last September that there would be Jubs in Sedona by year's end. Therefore I believe I am the winner of the pool. Tom, I am really interested in hearing your comments about the Sedona Jubs. However, I will take any review with a grain of salt since I have it on good authority that the Sedona Jubs will sound better and different then any other Jubs on the face of the planet for two very simple reasons: 1. The Sedona Jubs are made from a one of a kind special plywood; 2. Each of the Sedona Jubs has been located and alligned with an energy vortex found only in Sedona. Still looking forward to the review. Travis

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Christy and Eldon, I am so sorry to hear the news about your latest addition to the DTEL tribe. (25+ for Thanksgiving, that has got to be a hoot). We will keep the little guy in our prayers and please let us know if there is anything we can do. A good hunting buddy of mine has that condition, he is 55, hunts all over the world. He is from Galviston (BOI) and is one of the greatest people you would ever want to meet. If he hadn't told me I would have never known other then he is very careful about ETOH intake and popcorn. I hope it does not come to that, but God does not give us challenges that we cannot handle. Travis

I am on day four of a cold, missed two days of work so far. This has never happened to me before, ever, as an adult. I am also feeling that I am also having allergy symptoms on things I have never been alergic to before, like Cedar. I think this is probably coincidental and has nothing to do with quitting smoking. My mother-in-law sent me a box of Cohiba Esplindidos with a note saying she knows I quit smoking cigs but was not sure if I was "still smoking cigars because you don't inhale those." I am afraid to even light up a cigar, so what do I do with a $500+ (they are export from Paris) box of cigars? She did send 5 or 6 lps from the late 50's, including a NAB show only relase of Ahad Jamel from 1966, so I guess I can't complain. Travis

Between ASCAP and RIAA I would say about 30 to 40. Again, this is on issues where they have tried to say that things are protected which clearly are not protected, or where they were trying to collect a royalty where one had already been paid. If you are downloading music, movies, etc. from the internet you are probably violating copyright and fair use is not a defense. Making a copy of a cd you own and putting on a musicserver, a home computer, making a backup copy, even making a copy for your wife to use in her car is all fair use. The main point of all of this is that the article title was: Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use. The title is misleading and just creates more confusion. Downloading a song that you do not pay for, whether it is for personal use or not, is a copyright violation. The record industry has been going after personal use downloads for a long time. They then suggest that the Industry is going after people who make a copy of a cd onto there computer. The suit against the guy in AZ had nothing to do with him putting copy of the CD on his computer. What it did have to do with is his putting the songs in a folder on his computer that would allow others in cyberspace to download those files and that he allowed people to download them, and knew they were downloading them. So the RIAA was either trying to create a misimpression that copying a CD to your computer can get you in trouble, or the paper was just trying to stir the pot by creating a misimpression that the RIAA was going overboard. Either way, it is bad news because someone reading that article could easy come away with the impresson that making a copy of you computer could cause you trouble. Travis

You arn't going to try and go back and say you meaning something else now are you? In your posts to Mark you refered to the DMCA twice, and it's not even on point. The Home Recording Act controls. Nothing in the Washington Post article mentions that the CD's were copy protected and that is why there were going after the guy from AZ. Try to keep up here, the issue that is of concern to everyone is whether there is a problem with making a copy of a cd you own to your own computer. You can look at and read the DMCA all day long, it does not apply, that Act even says it does not apply. The letter you cited is clearly to an ISP, and like I said, the DMCA provides for limited liability to an ISP if they comply with certain requirements. One of them is if they receive notice of possible infirngment by a user that they take action. That letter it giving an ISP such notice. Again, the DMCA has nothing to do with an individual putting a copy on a computer, or making illegal downloads or providing a shared file. The DMCA does not cover an individual who copies his own CDs, whether he gets around copy protection or not. The Act specfically provides that it does not change anything with regard to fair use. You can still copy a copyprotected CD if it is fairuse. The DMCA does not discuss usage in this context. Bottomline: THe DMCA has nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread or the article. Fair Use, with regard to recorded music was was covered in 1992, and is defined as a person who purchases the music, as a record, a CD, or any other format can make a copy for non-commercial use. The only question that needs to be answered is how far can the copy go. Can it be give to a family member to use? To a friend to see if they want to buy it? Travis

Mark, The order I attached involved ex parte filings, it just held that they cannot do it in mass. We were able to get our court to say they had to do it one at a time. Ex Parte just means that it is filed without having to serve it on another party, that they can proceed with the case until they know who the defendant is. So, for example, let's say that someone was selling Jucy Music BBX's on ebay, but it was not you. They were a cheap non-functional imitation. You would have several options. Contact law enforcement and advise them fraud was being committed, and/or ebay. You would also have the option of seeking an injunction against the seller. If you call/write ebay they will not disclose the seller's information to you. However, if they receive a subpeona they will immediately fax the information to you as to the identity of the user (they have a whole department that does nothing but respond to court orders for this purpose). You cannot get a subpeona unless there has been a lawsuit filed. So you would be in a Catch-22, you can't sue for the injuection because you don't know who to sue, but you cannot find out to sue because you cannot get a subpeona unless suit has been file. With a Doe defendant you allege that a Doe is infringing on your copyright, that they are selling on ebay, and that you will amend the name of the Doe when you learn there identity. You file the suit, you get the subpeona, you learn the identity, you amend your complaint, and you serve the sum-bit_h. What counter balances someone trying to get personal information just for the sake of doing it is that ebay is required to notify you that the records have been requested and they will comply unless they hear from you and that you file, at your expense, and opposition to the request. If the request is made without a good faith basis the requester could be sued for abuse of process, face a bar complaint, etc. As far as nationwide, it is going to be a state by state, and Federal Court by Federal Court type of thing. This goes to your point where a judge can have an impact on how a case is going to proceed. In Travis County they are going to have to be more sure about wanting to file against someone because they are going to have to file a seperate filing fee for each defendant. In a jurisdiction where a judge might be more sympathetic (this is counter-intuitive to the usual liberal vs conservative, individual vs. corporate idological breakdowns) to the Plaintiffs might allow them to bring them in mass. Thus, courts (i.e., the Judge) can make a hugh difference in how cases proceed, whether it will be tough going, easy going, etc. However with regard to these kinds of cases, the issues are multilayerd and complex. Something that helps the little guy can impact other little guys. Something that hurts the big company can also hurt the little guy. Looking at the decision/order I attached for example, the attorneys for the record co's involved could claim the judge was anti-big business, pro little guy, but a starving recording artist (there are a lot in Austin), could read it and think how anti-arts the judge is, others could say he is anti-performer vs. pro-songwriter, etc., etc. Political leanings do have an impact, but so do a lot of other things besides politics. That will never change because judges are human and are going to bring everything in their past into the decision making process. Travis

More fascinating illogic... Without the Act, there would be no standing on which to inititate a suit. If you are referring to the DMCA again, that Act has nothing to do with a suit by a record company against an individual for sharing files over the internet. downloading music or making an illegal copy. The federal courts have jurisdition over patent and copyright matters by virtue of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anyone who claims to own or have an interest in copyrighted material has standing to sue for infringement. THe DMCA did not change whether there was jurisdiction or standing in any way, either by limitation or expansion. And the courts do not initiate a suit or 'go after' anyone. The court is simply the framework in which lawyers pursue restitition under the law. And, short of reforming the law passed by Congress which provides standing for the lawsuits, it sounds like the opposition needs better lawyers better able to make such 'simple' points! And a guy copying CDs to his computer and redistributing them to others is FAR different than someone simply copying them for his own personal use. Duh! I guess the real problem is that the court has windows!

As I have mentioned before in the forum, we were able to get our District Court to end this practice of multiple does. Of course this is going to go jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but if you try and file someting here you have to file a seperate lawsuit for each Doe. I have attached a copy of the judge's order. As you can see, he saw right through what the record companies were trying to do. Travis RIAA 111704.pdf

Fascinating rant. I didn't really see it as a rant, if the story were in fact accurate it would be very scary. And a wonderful misrepresentation of the role of the courts in society. I think it is always healthy to question. Our courts at one time held that seperate but equal was fair, that puting all Japanesse americans in concentration camps was legal, etc., etc. Just for curiousities sake, you might want to look into the text of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which dictates the current usage limits as defined by Congess. The Courts are simply enforcing the law. No it doesn't, it doesn't have anything to do with the case mentioned in the article. I don't know what you mean by "usage limits" because that Act covers the manufacture of equipment/software to get around copyright protection. The other component was to protect ISP provider from infringement liability if they met certain standards. It has NOTHING to do with transfering files to others over the internet or making a copy to your own computer. If you don't like it, and there are plenty of things about it not to like, work to change the law. And the "non-legal mind" would do well to cool it with the wacko conspiratorial rants against the courts, where here, in one of their few moments, the courts are not legislating from the bench but simply enforcing the law as it stands. If the court had in fact ruled that making a copy of a cd to your own computer, both of which were legally owned, they would be legislating from the bench. Fortunately, the article was only about the attorney for the record company plaintiffs "trying" to make the argument.

Maron, You are absolutely right. I knew there had to be a whole lot more to the story. It's a Kaza file sharing case. I am surpirzed the Washington Post missed this so bad, but it really is true-- never believe what you read in the paper. While it is true that the attorney for the Record Co.s did make the arugument that sound files on the defendant's computer were "illegal" it was a minor point, in a supplemental brief, that goes to the issue of determining the amount of damages/fines the defendant has to pay. The brief does not argue that making a copy of a cd onto computer, by itself, is infringement, but only where there is evidence that files were transfered or shared. What the actual point that was trying to be made was that since the defendannt ripped them in MP3 format, this was further evidence that the defendnat intended to transfer them (because they are compressed and faster to transfer over the internet). Taken out of context it could look like the brief was trying to argue that copying the cd to the computer in MP3 format would be infringement, but that was not the position being taken. The article was a bunch of hype, and the RIAA (which is not a party to the suit, only the spokesperson) did not do a very good job of clarifying what it was trying to do or say. Making a copy from a cd you own, to your computer, or another cd, or anything else for "non-commercial" use is not infringment and is not illegal. It is fair use, and it was specifically addressed in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. You had to suspect that this was hype because this would be no different then with a music server situation. You can buy music servers that have built in CD transports to allow you to transfer your legal cd's to your server/hardrive, for your own personal use. There is no problem with doing that. Now if you hook up the sever to the internet and tell the world they are free to download whatever they want you are going to have some problems. Travis

Mark, There are a number of copyright legal scholars who are in total agreement with you. Specifically, how laws such as laws are are adversly effecting 1st Amendment rights, eliminating fair use even though that was not the intent of the law, as well as chilling education and research. Travis