It is easily possible if she has an innate regard for intellect, if you have an innate regard for arts and literature, and if you are careful about which of your electronics friends she meets. My wife actually looks forward to extended visits from Morgan Jones, Jan Didden, Pete Millett, Scott Wurcer... you get the idea. I've kept her away from the bulk of audiophiles.
Oh yes, women hate subwoofers. Avoid at all costs.
Oh yes, women hate subwoofers. Avoid at all costs.
I doubt you have ever owned a system or had experience with the kind of system he is talking about. You also misunderstand Frank's comment.
He is saying that a great system reveals the warts but keeps them in perspective. Most systems let bad attributes take over the sound and destroy spectral balance or mask other instruments. Dave we all know you have basked in audio mediocrity when to comes to your gear, which is why you have these ideas of uniformity. 🙂
For example, Rick James "Super Freak" on an ordinary system is bright and grainy forward and although a fun song only marginally listenable.
On a great system you realize that only some of the samples are bright and James's voice is very natural as are the instruments, everything is segregated and the spectral balance returns such that it can be played very loudly with out a forward "POP" sound.
This was discovered using Wilson WP7's vs' ATC SCM150ASL's, if you have to ask which was the great speaker, you are a noob.
Another "BAD" recording Valery Gergiev Scheherazade panned as a junk recording with poor imaging. Turns out if you have (super)excellent phase in your amplifier and loudspeakers the recording is quite good and images as well or better than any other recordings of it kind.
Discovered on my DIY loudspeakers and fixed a pair of Kharma's with room correction.
Changes to the system taking a recording out of the 86 bin and into acceptablility. Many ways to do it. What system do we use to determine a "BAD" recording David? Do we listen to it through the system it was made on or your system? Maybe your system as are many of the "snake oiled" system aren't really calibrated to be references of such things.
If Rick James "Super Freak" is forward bright and "un-listenable" or the imaging on Gergiev's Scheherazade is not wide and deep, then you have work to do!!!! adios.
Congratulations DF96 !
Honour your choise and you’ll find your own way through, don’t ask for guidance from your buddies here, we’ll ruin you.
You are the dog, she is the cat, piece of cake.
George
Honour your choise and you’ll find your own way through, don’t ask for guidance from your buddies here, we’ll ruin you.
You are the dog, she is the cat, piece of cake.
George
"The Big Silver Oval performs very much like the Oval 8 [Aussie zip cord?] but, especially at higher volumes, adds a bit more aura [silvery with a crystalline coppery core?] around a singer's voice. The kernel [nutty brown?] of the tone remains the same but the halo [fuzzy? round? angelic?] around it has slightly more energy to reach farther into the surrounding space. In audiophile terms, more air [in engineering terms, "more energy" = louder]. Accordingly, certain hashy events like cymbals and triangles rang out and sparkled more while their initial impact felt sharper [sparkly and sharp hash brown tones?]. On the virile climaxes of the various tenors on Vicente Pradal's La Nuit Obscure, the monster high notes seemed louder [because the thrusting monster high notes squirted juicy and warm into your , um, rhymes with ear?]. Whether they actually were or whether the leading edge was more defined is debatable[umeasurable? ineffable?] - but the effect amounted to the same."
A bargain at $180/foot, but only works really well with matching oval loudspeakers - Mopar OEM Dodge RAM Charger Magnum 6x9 Front or Rear Door Speaker.
A bargain at $180/foot, but only works really well with matching oval loudspeakers - Mopar OEM Dodge RAM Charger Magnum 6x9 Front or Rear Door Speaker.
You already cited Belden so I took their "precision video" cables which has +/- 2% tolerance.
I thought the discussion was about cables? I gave a possible explanation for one such directionality difference in SPDIF coaxial cables. It may or may not have an audible effect - that's another debate.
Different tolerance. That's not dimensional, it's overall characteristic impedance, i.e., the cable can be +/-1.5 ohm, not the +/-7.5 ohms you were tossing around. I'll leave you to calculate the change in SWR (hint: 67% of f-all). That is, of course, irrelevant to spdif transmission and "directionality."
That snake has been milked thoroughly. Best find another one.😀
Before giving an explanation of how, give evidence that such an effect exists.
A (how many?) times, you make a claim, demonstrate it. Do note sit on your hands and expect a disproof.
Indeed, it doesn't need to be held that tightly. SPC methods have greatly improved tolerances from tighter-than-needed to ridiculously-tight. Calculate the SWR change with a 1.5 ohm variation if you need proof.
Remember, the cable runs here are relatively short and the bandwidth is not onerous. Compared to the task of running CATV signals, this is trivial.
Remember, the cable runs here are relatively short and the bandwidth is not onerous. Compared to the task of running CATV signals, this is trivial.
I make no claim as to audibility - I simply gave an explanation for one specific example of directionality in a cable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.