From: ShadowTek@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 2010-08-31, Dick Pierce  wrote:   
   > ShadowTek wrote:   
   >> On 2010-08-30, Dick Pierce  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>ShadowTek wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>It makes replacing that speaker inconvenient.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, the connector doesn't make replacing the speaker   
   >>>inconvenient, rather the multiple unique functions   
   >>>that speaker provides (controls for fader, master   
   >>>volume, and on-off) makes replacing that speaker   
   >>>impossible, except from the manufacturer.   
   >>   
   >> Yeah, impossible; it's not like I could actually cut a hole in the   
   >> speaker box, run the speaker wires to another speaker, and effectively   
   >> "replace" the old speaker, while still using it's build in controls.   
   > >   
   >> Like I said, inconvenient.   
   >   
   > Let's all remember what this guy considers 'inconvenient'.   
   >   
   >>>The   
   >>>connector is irrelevant other than the fact that it   
   >>>makes connecting the necessarily unique replacement   
   >>>easier.   
   >> So a serial cable with 2 screws is "easier"? Easier   
   > > than what? The other speaker plugs that simply push in?   
   >   
   > So, let's make sure we all got this right.   
   >   
   > You're saying that when it comes time to replace this speaker,   
   > it's easier to unscrew two screws, unplug a cable, and, as you   
   > say,   
   >   
   >     "cut a hole in the speaker box, run the speaker wires to   
   >     another speaker,"   
   >   
   > presumably cutting and stripping wires, soldering on connectors,   
   > to, as you say:   
   >   
   >     "effectively 'replace' the old speaker"   
   >   
   > than it is to plug a new connector in and tighten two screws?   
      
   No, replacing the old "puny" speaker (as I have previously referenced it) with   
   the same puny speaker is not an option. Therefore, the options are to   
   replace the speaker, or to not replace the speaker.   
      
      
   >> You're sounding a bit trollish, dude.   
   >   
   > Thank you for your relevant, well reasoned technically   
   > informed comment. Clearly, people such as yourself have   
   > made enigneering and technical contributions if such   
   > significance as to advance the Internet to where it is   
   > today.   
   >   
   > Let me guess: what do we all think the chances are that   
   > this guy actually went out and bought these unmitigated   
   > pieces crap, and now wants the rest of the world to   
   > make him feel good and forget the fact that he screwed   
   > up?   
      
   I did not buy them, nor did I ever place a bid on them,   
   since I read the manual first, and realized that   
   this was a product that I did not want.   
      
      
   > Or what about the possibility that he might actually   
   > realize that a DB9 is NOT a "damn parallel plug" as   
   > he first claimed and that, in fact, it's not at all   
   > uncommon for even high-end audio interfaces to use   
   > DB9s for multiple analog channel interfacing?   
      
   I looked like a serial plug from the picture, but I specifically   
   referred to it as a "parallel" since that's exactly what the manual   
   calls it.   
      
   As for how common it's use is, that *was* the very nature of my OP.   
      
      
   Condisering how needlessly hateful you're being, you're obviously a troll,   
   so I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your hollow post.   
      
   *plonk*   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)