A fundamental of audio is that everything matters - and I would suggest that no-one would deny that minute fiddling with how the cartridge assembly is mounted in a TT, how every part of its mechanical behaviour has impact on the sound, and adjusting that mechanical behaviour then alters the sound. Well, the sorry, sorry, truth is that the same considerations apply along the full chain, including the electronics, and, especially, including the digital source mechanism! Data "proving" otherwise is a nonsense, just means that you're not trying hard enough to measure - and in the interim the listeners' ears will do the "measuring" ...
You'd have thought there'd be some crossover. Some small proportion with the facilities who are interested, or some with the hearing and the equipment.
I've got a counter thesis. Those people who have the facilities to properly construct a useful testing regime are interested in finding out more, but they're not interested in testing the ideas of a bunch of guys insufficiently motivated to buy their own equipment or "prove" (sic) anything.
Talk's cheap, but it takes money to buy liquor. Put your money where your mouth is.
I've never encountered an audiophile yet who will take a square bet.
Van Morrison said:
Last edited:
Measure the series and parallel Z as a first step. Look for any resonances introduced and the min Z.
-RM
Part of the problem is creating a decent testing environment - the only measurement that really counts, as far as I'm concerned, is what comes out of the speaker. So, a very good acoustic environment is needed, top quality microphones and recording setup; then, a tool that can usefully analyse what's emerging, comparing it to the source material - DiffMaker is the right concept, but highly flawed in execution - a measuring tool that can't be trusted is worse than no tool at all.
Pano is doing a very interesting investigation of low level detail retrieval at the moment, in another thread - this is the sort of work that needs to be done ...
Baggage, I don't think that direction raises any eyebrows. I just noticed a collection of DVD's that I thought was legit said "The Werner Hergog Collection"
You know, the headphone crowd used to be a pretty sane bunch. But now that headphones are seen as a growth market, all the quacks and charlatans are moving in like so many buzzards.
MIT Cables Vero Headphone Cable technology - Bruce Brisson video
Sad.
se
MIT Cables Vero Headphone Cable technology - Bruce Brisson video
Sad.
se
So, the next time you board a plane you would be happy to be aware that the engineers who designed the beast, and those who maintained it, didn't believe that everything mattered - so long as a few things like fantastic engines, and great wing structures were in place - that's going be sufficient for a safe journey?
That's how I view the process of getting good sound - assuming nothing, and working at it until every thing that can cause problems is addressed - ends up giving me satisfying sound, ie. a safe plane journey, and has worked every time ...
Last edited:
Show me a cable with a non-flat group delay. Well, except for MIT's. They probably have non-flat group delays after throwing those stupid networks on them. "Articulation poles" is just a lot of gibberish.
se
Here's MIT's video "explaining" their "articulation poles." It's pure gibberish and charlatanry. Brisson's been a huckster ever since he worked for Monster Cable.
http://youtu.be/WfksBBugqzY
se
http://youtu.be/WfksBBugqzY
se
The primary criterium to spot a half decent engineer is one who is able to design wings which will generate sufficient lift, and pick engines with enough pounds of thrust.
(which some at this forum are actually able to, others merely get off every day by trying to illude others that they can, and themselves)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.