leitztozeiss

I agree. The X5 on-board amp is quite good, likely the best for onboard amps in MP3's. Also, can't argue with you on Etymotics. I've tried those and the Vmoda Vibes IEM's, but prefer the 'open air' sound of the Grado's. Ipods can sound decent when amplifying the line-out - it's a world of difference compared with the crap sound from the headphone out.

Also, for an education on hi-end headfi and an introduction to a whole other addiction, checkout http://www.head-fi.org/. You might find me there too.

I wouldn't stress too much about people who don't know anything about iAudio. Their numbers are far too great to get stressed about one person's clearly uninformed comments. For those who care, iAudio X5 is one of the finest, cleanest sounding MP3 players one can buy. Ipods are superior in looks and user interface - that's about it. In end, the sound is what counts. Neil, get your self a set of these and a quality headphone amp and really get the most out of your X5:

I am exactly where you are my friend.

Marco - this is a fantastic piece. Wear it well my friend.

Given your freakishly high scores, I think it is fair for you to ask for an explanation.

I did not make any such conclusions. Let me end by sharing a moment . . . My son and I were observing Saturn the other night through my telescope, and he (a 3 year old) asked me, "dad, can we see Earth?" I said, not right now son, but one day soon, you will.

Yes. Very good point.

Luc, companies don't just roll over and pay royalties because of the existence of a patent. This is not just U.S. companies - this is ALL companies. Even when asked, a company may have valid reasons for not paying the royalty. Perhaps they believe they do not infringe and have opinion from counsel indicating noninfringement, OR maybe they believe the patent is invalid and have opinion from their counsel indicating invalidity. Anyway, he had rights, he had means to assert those rights, but he didn't follow procedure and was burned by his own (or attorney's) mistake. One word was missing from the front of his complaint that might have completely changed the outcome - "Uniboard." Well, if he did it for reasons related to the law suit, then he really did screw up, didn't he? There is no good excuse for not including Uniboard as a party to the suit. The one of the them with the patent rights should have filed suit while the patent was in force. I'm sorry, but it really is not that simple. At this point, you're only a step away from Kevin Bacon. There is NO straight forward approach to defining intellectual property rights and enforcing them. None.

Before leaving Sweden to return to the U.S., I stocked up on those wonderful woolies. Worth every Kronor.

Hi Mark. I hope all is well. Please contact me via phone, PM, or email. I would like to have my 6152 project and 036 returned. I will, of course, pay for shipping.

A patent holder has rights during the term of his patent. The patent at issue (U.S. 4303986) is expired, so companies could not be compelled to pay royalties today. Lans assigned the rights to his patent to another entity, Uniboard AB, which is wholly owned by Lans. It seems that he did this for tax reasons, so I suppose that even Lans would acknowledge himself and Uniboard as separate entities. At least, that's what he would submit to the tax collector. The tragedy here is that Lans filed his suit under his name only without mentioning the patent holder, Uniboard AB, as a party to the suit. It does not matter that Lans is the inventor - he assigned his rights to Uniboard. It does not matter that he owns Uniboard, as they are different entities, particularly in the eyes of the courts (just as they are viewed as different entities to the tax collector). The distinction between the U.S. and China here is that the U.S. does have a system that allows preservation and enforcement of intellectual property rights. China does have a system for defining intellectual property rights, but enforcement is, quite frankly, a joke. Lans had rights and screwed up in asserting those rights. While Lans's story is tragic, there is no moral connection between Lans's blundered attempt at asserting his patent rights, and the U.S. government and China. (I hate to be on the opposite side from you on this one Luc for several reasons. One, having spent several years in Sweden, its country, culture and people will always have a special place in my heart. Two, my youngest boy's name is Lucas.)

Beautiful Marco!! Beautiful!!!!!!

What a fantastic gift . . . what a woman!!

The subs are just so darn good these days . . . thanks for the photo comparison.

Or, pay for a watch by credit card, then cancel the charges if they go into administration and don't send the watch.

That is a gorgeous pilot watch. Wear it well!

You are welcome! Lol! My WM 1665 has been sitting on my shelf since I got this thing. Anyone want a fully modded WM 1665??

IMHO, who cares what the movement looks like as long as it looks like this on the wrist:

I love it!!

I believe it's an early trusty, as this one has the square bridge swiss movement.

In my experience, a Tropic 21 will fit an EE 6263. I do find, however, that the bezels (especially the black one) can be a bit tight fitting over the crystal.

Joseph Abboud over PAM 127/Greg Stevens "Crazy Horse":

Wow! How?