Not to prolong the flame war, but Mr. Cwiklinski you make claims which you
cannot back: "Majority of analog Pioneer equipment is still running today/"
How do you know? Do you keep track of all sold?
You also claim that Pioneer was high end (in previous posts), yet state
here that "all analog manufacturers did the same thing...except for the
very (sic) high-end components". This solidifies John's argument that
Pioneer was NOT high-end. End of discussion.
John H. has been a very highly respected and regarded member of this list.
Your comments about him ("stick to your cameras and choo-choo's") (sic)
are inflammatory and really are not acceptable. Keep the flames to the
Newsgroups on the internet. This is not a newsgroup. This is a
subscription
list, and the spirit should be kept positive, informative, and enlightening.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John
Cwiklinski/Beaverton/Contr/IBM
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:10 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OT] hifi was:[OM] Lens Test
Continued off-topic:
John Hermason wrote:
>True, amongst audiophilers in the 70s, Pioneer was thought of as low end
>and a user of "cheap parts", like non-linear volume controls.
Nah! Stick with your cameras and choo-choo's. Majority of analog Pioneer
equipment is still running today. Besides, all the analog audio
manufacturers did the same thing (and still do), except for the very
high-end components. Pioneer "car" equipment was trash, not home audio.
________________
John Cwiklinski
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|