LOL.Originally Posted by Rocker
Once upon I time I was an avionics engineer for the RAF. Accurate telemetry is quite important in supersonic fighter aircraft, which is probably why they were investigating cryogenically cooled superconductors 25yrs ago. Even with that, as far as I know no aircraft ever flew into the side of a hill because the electrons didn't travel the length of the aircraft fast enough. Which is also why I also spent many hours building wiring looms from the same wire you can get in Maplins.
I'm on the fence about if cables can affect the sound or not but they definitely affect the taste.
No Forbidding Allowed
My band made (another) Xmas song: https://soundcloud.com/polarityman/p...in-vallhalla-2
Who knows there may be some mojo in cables. I remember reading about Dave Gilmour's studio being re wired with directional cable (ac audio current go figure) and some super mojo earth straps. He feels it's worth it so there's a professional endorsement
There's certainly no harm in exploring these area's
Good earth bonding makes sense - it's not always necessary but it can provably improve both noise performance and safety. Directional cables, on the other hand, are provably bunkum - unless you count that awful one-ended shielding approach, which is provably inferior in every almost application - and never better.
You're with stupid. ▲
Agree ++.
So disappointing that nothing substantial has appeared.
Think on, demanding readers.
Please ignore everything I say from now on'cos I've a couple of pieces of their kit.
IMO it's only woth considering when everything else in the replay chain is pretty neutral.
Depressingly, IME, that comes somewhere north of 2k per unit (new).
Add in (first) some room acoustic treatment, if it's not large
When you get to this point, you may be entirely happy.
If not, then get a trial on this stuff - I didn't hear anything better.
It's hugely expensive, and I am aware of psycho-acoustics, but compared to others it seems to do something.
Poor health has kept me house-boundish for 10 years.
I live with my system 12/18 hours a day.
At this level it may be worth it.
Last edited by barry2tone; 2nd February 2013 at 02:10 PM.
WAY too much time sitting around staring at them, instead of using them to drunkenly show off in front of girls for money, as nature intended.
I do find it funny how few audiophiles seem to have any interest in acoustics.
You're with stupid. ▲
Some folks are always fooled by kit.
Truly, the room/speaker interaction is very much the most of what you hear.
But lowering the "noise floor" does seem to allow more detail through.
I was astounded to read -
"The tympanic membrane is highly sensitive to pressure variation caused by sound waves.
It responds to remarkably minute pressure variations.
The pressure variation corresponding to 0db - the threshold of hearing - is 0.0002 dynes per cm2.
Since the tympanic membrane is about 1cm2 in area, the total force acting on the tympanic membrane at 0db is 0.0002 dynes.
A force this small causes the tympanic membrane to move 10-9cm, or approximately 1/10th. the diameter of a hydrogen molecule."
http://web.udl.es/usuaris/m0163949/earwave.htm
You ears are pretty damn sensitive!
This is higher physical resolution than (most) electron microscopes.
LCR may not tell the full story.
Doesn't mean you can't fill in and make do!
Last edited by barry2tone; 2nd February 2013 at 01:37 PM.
WAY too much time sitting around staring at them, instead of using them to drunkenly show off in front of girls for money, as nature intended.
Are you seriously suggesting that McLaren, who spend ~£150 million a year on Formula One racing, make a bad decision on when to change a drivers tyres, because they were losing data from one end of a cable to another, and they hadn't thought to fix that?
Are you seriously suggesting that people who design MRI machines which cost ~£1 million a unit, hadn't thought to test that the data leaving the machine is the same as the data arriving at the computer?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote