Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Aardvark Gone?!!

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:01:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anyone hear any scuttlebutt about what happened with Aardvark? They had
good products but fell off the face of the earth without a noise.

More about : aardvark

Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:16:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 20 Jul 2005 08:01:46 -0700, tymish@hotmail.com wrote:

>Anyone hear any scuttlebutt about what happened with Aardvark? They had
>good products but fell off the face of the earth without a noise.

Actually, a few people on here groused a bit (me being one of them).
Someone in another forum posted a link to a company some of the
Aardvark people founded. I sent them an email asking if they were
going to open source the drivers, and heard nothing back.
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:26:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <sottd1tridlqo2imjlapv1es74nitukfiu@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:

> Someone in another forum posted a link to a company some of the
> Aardvark people founded. I sent them an email asking if they were
> going to open source the drivers, and heard nothing back.

Yeah, some other not-a-household-animal name. The problem with "open
sourcing" drivers is that people who think they know what they're
doing will mess with them, not test their work thoroughly, and put
their work up for grabs.

I would think that anyone who is really interested in updating drivers
and is qualified to do so could contact the company (or whoever owns
the intellectual property) and get licensed. No money need exchange
hands (though it could) but at least everybody and his programmer kid
brother wouldn't be hacking away.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 21 Jul 2005 09:26:35 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <sottd1tridlqo2imjlapv1es74nitukfiu@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:
>
>> Someone in another forum posted a link to a company some of the
>> Aardvark people founded. I sent them an email asking if they were
>> going to open source the drivers, and heard nothing back.
>
>Yeah, some other not-a-household-animal name. The problem with "open
>sourcing" drivers is that people who think they know what they're
>doing will mess with them, not test their work thoroughly, and put
>their work up for grabs.

I'd rather deal with 15 monkeys banging away on improving drivers than
pissing away $700 dollars on a new interface I can't afford.
*wry grin*
The Q10 does everything I want, with very decent sound quality. I'm
not pro-level, won't be until I get more experience, and it's a good
enough piece to pass for semi-pro around here.

I've recorded a few local acts with it, and have done better demos and
scratch tracks with it, Sonar, and free plugins than some of the
people around here who claim 'pro' quality (not nearly as good as
those that deserve the pro label around here, like John Keane).
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 1:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <i0p0e1h91st3ukghrub025p2o28sqtqitk@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:

> I'd rather deal with 15 monkeys banging away on improving drivers than
> pissing away $700 dollars on a new interface I can't afford.

In that case, you're truly in the wrong business. If you can't pay for
your new $700 interface in a couple of sessions, you aren't charging
enough and you shouldn't be buying $700 hardware, you should be buying
$100 hardware. Then you won't feel so bad when the driver upgrades
stop.

> The Q10 does everything I want, with very decent sound quality. I'm
> not pro-level, won't be until I get more experience, and it's a good
> enough piece to pass for semi-pro around here.

So did it suddenly stop working because the company went out of
business? I doubt it. Keep using it and enjoy the increasing value of
your investment.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:46:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <sottd1tridlqo2imjlapv1es74nitukfiu@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:
>
>
>>Someone in another forum posted a link to a company some of the
>>Aardvark people founded. I sent them an email asking if they were
>>going to open source the drivers, and heard nothing back.
>
>
> Yeah, some other not-a-household-animal name. The problem with "open
> sourcing" drivers is that people who think they know what they're
> doing will mess with them, not test their work thoroughly, and put
> their work up for grabs.
>

That's not completely true. Good open source has a
test suite embedded in it. The Tcl language has
TclTest, for example.

But test vectors for drivers are hopeless.

Anybody who develops
custom hardware just volunteered to maintain a
controlled test environment for that product for
as long as it's necessary to do so.

I don't know why, but nobody in the technology
industry seems to accept this fact.

> I would think that anyone who is really interested in updating drivers
> and is qualified to do so could contact the company (or whoever owns
> the intellectual property) and get licensed.

But where's the percentage in that? Unless the devloper is retained
by 'em, and the drievrs become official supported objects,
the whole thing falls completely apart.

> No money need exchange
> hands (though it could) but at least everybody and his programmer kid
> brother wouldn't be hacking away.
>

The information necessary to adequately do development
is usually trade secret/"classified". It can easily
be used by a competitor to reverse engineer the product.

It would be irresponsible for management to release that
information without NDA.

You can't have intellectual property protection and
eat it too :) 

> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

--
Les Cargill
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 12:25:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <zp9Ee.13164$t43.9471@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> noway@jose.com writes:

> > I would think that anyone who is really interested in updating drivers
> > and is qualified to do so could contact the company (or whoever owns
> > the intellectual property) and get licensed.
>
> But where's the percentage in that?

Where's teh percentage in writing open source software? You do it
because you need the product (for instance the driver update)
yourself, so you write it and then give it away to anyone who wants to
use it as is or (hopefully) improve on it.

> The information necessary to adequately do development
> is usually trade secret/"classified". It can easily
> be used by a competitor to reverse engineer the product.

And this is why some products die. The competitors aren't intestested
because they think they have something better, and often they do.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:18:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 22 Jul 2005 09:07:12 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <i0p0e1h91st3ukghrub025p2o28sqtqitk@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:

>So did it suddenly stop working because the company went out of
>business? I doubt it. Keep using it and enjoy the increasing value of
>your investment.

It works fine... for now. But it'd be nice to be able to keep it
around when I next upgrade OS's... though by that time, maybe I'll be
able to afford to buy something more apt to stay supported.

Luckily, this isn't my business, it's a sideline/hobby. Then again,
my dayjob is getting paid to do a hobby, too. :-D

jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 2:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <o1a3e158ufthp5fqgv7cj90tuqmtkoldap@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:

> It works fine... for now. But it'd be nice to be able to keep it
> around when I next upgrade OS's... though by that time, maybe I'll be
> able to afford to buy something more apt to stay supported.

Why upgrade the OS if it's working? Do you want two things that don't
work? <g> You should probably consider all the implications and
ramifications of upgrading the OS. Perhaps you might even want to keep
an "old" computer around just to run legacy hardware and software.

That's sort of what I do around here, only I don't have a "new"
computer. My studio computer is still running Win98, but I don't use
it as a multitrack recorder and mixer. Already got those covered with
hardware.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:25:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <zp9Ee.13164$t43.9471@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> noway@jose.com writes:
>
>
>>>I would think that anyone who is really interested in updating drivers
>>>and is qualified to do so could contact the company (or whoever owns
>>>the intellectual property) and get licensed.
>>
>>But where's the percentage in that?
>
>
> Where's teh percentage in writing open source software?

There is some percentage in it, actually. In the
right context, open source can be used by companies
for leverege - they put in programmer
resources, get back work product.

Sometimes cooperation is more economically
sensible than competition.

> You do it
> because you need the product (for instance the driver update)
> yourself, so you write it and then give it away to anyone who wants to
> use it as is or (hopefully) improve on it.
>

But drivers define the interface contract for a
commerically available device. There's a conflict
of interest there.

The drivers are part of the device. If you don't
have all the details nailed down, you lose
control. Part of the value equation for
intellectual propety is the Ricardian rent, and
that's gone when it's opened.


>
>>The information necessary to adequately do development
>>is usually trade secret/"classified". It can easily
>>be used by a competitor to reverse engineer the product.
>
>
> And this is why some products die. The competitors aren't intestested
> because they think they have something better, and often they do.
>

That's true. But it also makes for a thrashier
marketplace. You better *know* you have someting
better.

I suspect that many "soundcard" makers just didn't
do the upfront work necessary to really understand
the full lifecycle for the product.

But we want it cheap, fast and good. We have to pick
two out of three....

Outfits like cranesong charge enough to
actually cover all cost. So it looks to
me like cheap soundcards are false economy.

>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
--
Les Cargill
Anonymous
July 23, 2005 9:25:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <X3vEe.14662$t43.2789@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> noway@jose.com writes:

> The drivers are part of the device. If you don't
> have all the details nailed down, you lose
> control. Part of the value equation for
> intellectual propety is the Ricardian rent, and
> that's gone when it's opened.

This is not a problem for a company that goes out of business (or
discontinues a product), but traditionally they don't give away their
code even if they don't have plans to use it again.

> I suspect that many "soundcard" makers just didn't
> do the upfront work necessary to really understand
> the full lifecycle for the product.

What's the life cycle of a sound card? Maybe 5 years? People always
will want more bits, more samples per second, or better sounding
hardware. A painful lesson that people who believed the line "It's all
based on software so it'll never go out of date" learned is that you
can only do so much in software, and then it's no longer supported.

> Outfits like cranesong charge enough to
> actually cover all cost. So it looks to
> me like cheap soundcards are false economy.

It depends on your requirements. If you're a hobbyist, you don't need
to spend Cranesong bucks to record your band in your spare bedroom,
and that's where most of the sales go.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:10:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <X3vEe.14662$t43.2789@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> noway@jose.com writes:
>
>
>>The drivers are part of the device. If you don't
>>have all the details nailed down, you lose
>>control. Part of the value equation for
>>intellectual propety is the Ricardian rent, and
>>that's gone when it's opened.
>
>
> This is not a problem for a company that goes out of business (or
> discontinues a product), but traditionally they don't give away their
> code even if they don't have plans to use it again.
>
>

In receivership, the door may be padlocked and nobody
interesting can have any influence over decisions.

>>I suspect that many "soundcard" makers just didn't
>>do the upfront work necessary to really understand
>>the full lifecycle for the product.
>
>
> What's the life cycle of a sound card? Maybe 5 years?

I have one going on ten. Don't use it, but it still works.
Badly.


> People always
> will want more bits, more samples per second, or better sounding
> hardware. A painful lesson that people who believed the line "It's all
> based on software so it'll never go out of date" learned is that you
> can only do so much in software, and then it's no longer supported.
>

The parts that aren't based on software are clearly not
based on software. Nobody confuses a device on the PCI
bus with software. Perhaps they should.

>
>>Outfits like cranesong charge enough to
>>actually cover all cost. So it looks to
>>me like cheap soundcards are false economy.
>
>
> It depends on your requirements. If you're a hobbyist, you don't need
> to spend Cranesong bucks to record your band in your spare bedroom,
> and that's where most of the sales go.
>

But still, Cranesong dollars were what's needed for the product
to actually be a product, rather than somebody's business
school lesson.

So what to do?

FWIW, I still use a device from several years ago which isn't
very good, but it documents my flow of ideas. It's also
not that bad. It got at least one kid off to the races.

>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

--
Les Cargill
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:00:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <fxEEe.23508$mC.75@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> noway@jose.com writes:

> > What's the life cycle of a sound card? Maybe 5 years?
>
> I have one going on ten. Don't use it, but it still works.
> Badly.

Sounds to me like its life cycle was over about 5 years ago. Life
cycle isn't just about whether something can be brought to life, it's
about whether it's worth while. It probably has a logic chip on it
that's no longer made, or something that was programmed at the factory
and the programming code isn't available to you. When that part
failed, it would clearly be at the end of its life. When a replacement
is no longer available, even though it may still be working, the life
cycle is over.

> But still, Cranesong dollars were what's needed for the product
> to actually be a product, rather than somebody's business
> school lesson.

So they market it to people who want the quality and features, and are
prepared to pay for it. Apparently there are some. You don't see
50,000 HEDDs in use, but you might find a software company selling
50,000 copies of a plug-in that claims to emulate analog recorder
performance.

> FWIW, I still use a device from several years ago which isn't
> very good, but it documents my flow of ideas. It's also
> not that bad. It got at least one kid off to the races.

Hey, I still use a 15 year old Soundcraft 600 console, which, at
$7,000, was an early "inexpensive pro" console. A $650 Behringer
digital would hum less, and that's the biggest problem with my
console in the digital age. It's probably a little worse now than when
it was new, but without extensive redesign of the physical bussing and
grounding, it will never be up to the performance of even the little
Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro sitting next to it (though I prefer the sound of
the Soundcraft's EQ and most of the time prefer the sound of the mic
preamps).

But I don't want to give the Soundcraft up for a Behringer. It's not
as easy to operate, and I know it won't last as long in my hands. If
people don't like a little hum with their audio, they can go elsewhere
to mix their projects. I can give them files that will import into
ProTools easily.

But, if I was actually in the business of selling recording time and
facilities, the Soundcraft would be out the door in a minute. It's
being used well past the end of its life cycle.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 1:20:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:16:49 -0400, jtougas
<jatougasNOSPAM@charter.net> wrote:

>On 20 Jul 2005 08:01:46 -0700, tymish@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Anyone hear any scuttlebutt about what happened with Aardvark? They had
>>good products but fell off the face of the earth without a noise.
>
>Actually, a few people on here groused a bit (me being one of them).
>Someone in another forum posted a link to a company some of the
>Aardvark people founded. I sent them an email asking if they were
>going to open source the drivers, and heard nothing back.
>jtougas

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/aardvarkpro/

The same group is petitioning for the drivers to be opensourced.

*fingers crossed*
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 1:26:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <iif8e1lqicl1q2gtj3plg3pnlq8kmjndei@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:

> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/aardvarkpro/
> The same group is petitioning for the drivers to be opensourced.

Has this ever happened with a product that didn't start out as an
open source product? And if the company did release the source code
(and any programming documentation and tools that they probably
developed to make writing and testing of drivers easier and more
systematic), would you trust your recordings to a new driver that was
written by one or a group of people who decided to give it a try?

If a product has been discontinued, use it until you no longer can,
for whatever reason, and then let it go.

I'm still waiting for someone to open-source (or for someone to
reverse engineer) the control logic for the HVAC in my car so I don't
have to push the "outside air" button every time I get start up on a
hot day. Any volunteers?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 2:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1122291290k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <iif8e1lqicl1q2gtj3plg3pnlq8kmjndei@4ax.com> jatougas@charter.net writes:
>
>> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/aardvarkpro/
>> The same group is petitioning for the drivers to be opensourced.
>
>Has this ever happened with a product that didn't start out as an
>open source product?

Yes, it used to happen a lot. When a company didn't want to support
a product any longer, they'd dump the source on their customers and let
them worry about it.

>And if the company did release the source code
>(and any programming documentation and tools that they probably
>developed to make writing and testing of drivers easier and more
>systematic), would you trust your recordings to a new driver that was
>written by one or a group of people who decided to give it a try?

Not until I'd tested it for a while myself, but I'd certainly give
it a try.

>If a product has been discontinued, use it until you no longer can,
>for whatever reason, and then let it go.

I'm not very good at letting go. I'm typing this on an HP2626A display
terminal connected to an Emulex terminal server.

>I'm still waiting for someone to open-source (or for someone to
>reverse engineer) the control logic for the HVAC in my car so I don't
>have to push the "outside air" button every time I get start up on a
>hot day. Any volunteers?

Probably not on your car, but there are folks who have reverse-engineered
most of the domestic car control systems. Probably you can get source
code for your engine control system, but the accessory stuff is going to
be hard to find unless you have a Ford or GM product.

It would be easier to build a box with a thermistor and a relay that
would just automatically press the button for you when it's hot and
the engine is starting.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 10:03:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dc2rah$aal$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> Yes, it used to happen a lot. When a company didn't want to support
> a product any longer, they'd dump the source on their customers and let
> them worry about it.

I suspect that you're not talking about cheap consumer products
though. So you bought this $65,000 spectrum analyzer that we don't
want to make any more, and neither does anybody else because they're
all making $2,000 spectrum analyzers. So here's the code. Knock
yourself out. I suspect that some operating systems took the same
route.

> I'm not very good at letting go. I'm typing this on an HP2626A display
> terminal connected to an Emulex terminal server.

Me neither. But sometimes I actually replace things that stop working
when I judge that it's no longer practical to repair them. I could
have taped batteries to the outside that old cordless telephone since
I can't find a battery pack that fits the comparetment.

> Probably not on your car, but there are folks who have reverse-engineered
> most of the domestic car control systems. Probably you can get source
> code for your engine control system, but the accessory stuff is going to
> be hard to find unless you have a Ford or GM product.

I remember seeing ads in the car magazines for replacement PROMs that
changed the characteristics of the combustion and emission control
system for more power. I don't know if they're as popular as they used
to be (as popular as that might have been) now that just about every
state has emission inspection. Some of them have a switch to change
back to the original parameters, others you have to remember to put
the origianal chip back in.

> It would be easier to build a box with a thermistor and a relay that
> would just automatically press the button for you when it's hot and
> the engine is starting.

Now, if I could only find the connections to that button . . .

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 11:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1122310071k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <dc2rah$aal$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:
>
>> Yes, it used to happen a lot. When a company didn't want to support
>> a product any longer, they'd dump the source on their customers and let
>> them worry about it.
>
>I suspect that you're not talking about cheap consumer products
>though. So you bought this $65,000 spectrum analyzer that we don't
>want to make any more, and neither does anybody else because they're
>all making $2,000 spectrum analyzers. So here's the code. Knock
>yourself out. I suspect that some operating systems took the same
>route.

Right. When you spend a substantial amount of money on a product, you
expect that. But then, with a lot of those products (and a lot of those
operating systems), you got the source code anyway, along with the deal.

Somewhere around here I have the VMS 4.7 source code on microfiche. It
cost us something like $200k when we got it. It was worth every penny
of that in being able to customize and maintain systems.

Now that computer systems are much cheaper and the labor to update and
maintain them is more expensive, it makes even more sense for vendors
to make this sort of thing available.

>> Probably not on your car, but there are folks who have reverse-engineered
>> most of the domestic car control systems. Probably you can get source
>> code for your engine control system, but the accessory stuff is going to
>> be hard to find unless you have a Ford or GM product.
>
>I remember seeing ads in the car magazines for replacement PROMs that
>changed the characteristics of the combustion and emission control
>system for more power. I don't know if they're as popular as they used
>to be (as popular as that might have been) now that just about every
>state has emission inspection. Some of them have a switch to change
>back to the original parameters, others you have to remember to put
>the origianal chip back in.

They are very popular, and there is a wide variety of different systems.
Some of them just change a few engine parameters, some of them completely
replace the software. Some of them replace the software in such a way
that you can plug a laptop into the ECU and change the gains on the fly
while driving. Then there are systems which completely replace the ECU
itself with their own processor, which are very popular among the NASCAR
crowd.

>> It would be easier to build a box with a thermistor and a relay that
>> would just automatically press the button for you when it's hot and
>> the engine is starting.
>
>Now, if I could only find the connections to that button . . .

That's why you spend $300 for the shop manual. Or get the dealer to throw
one in for free when you buy the car.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 10:49:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dc3t52$pj$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> That's why you spend $300 for the shop manual. Or get the dealer to throw
> one in for free when you buy the car.

I think the shop manual was about $85. I looked at one for my 1993
Lexus (the dealer actually loaned it to me!) and the only useful thing
I found in it was the frequency (it's at the low end of the FM
broadcast band) for the remote door lock. I use it to check the
battery. I didn't bother with one for the current car. I got the shop
to show me how to find the oil filter and that's the extent of my car
repairs any more.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
!