Didn't know they were in regular supply yet, seen plenty of info on them but havn't seen any in Farnell etc. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
High quality, low cost carbon nanotubes and graphene suppliers
For the real DIYer! 🙂 Starting at $5.00!
So old fashioned, you just print them directly onto the circuit board.
Nanotube ink (Nink): for Inkjet Printing of Carbon Nanotube Inks
Or I can tell you where to go...to buy leaded versions, but they are expensive and very low resistance value... 🙂
Used solely as a substitute for much cheaper options, the point? The properties that make them useful in research in new types of gas or chemical detectors probably make them suck as resistors. Sort of like rolling capacitors out of PVDF piezo film.
Not talking about the product in discussion. But if we don't know how a product is working and inside doesn't reveal anything and there is no explanation, how do we know that it is improving or degrading the sound ?
Working in the wrong fields of electronics, never get much call for tis exotic stuff🙂
But we do know, resistors and how they work are well documented...
As I said many years ago the way to make a BQP id wrap a low value resistor in some SRF (I think that's the name, basically the EMC conductive cloth) material, add some shrink wrap and voila your own quantum purifiers.
So? We really are cross talking here. The issue is not really what Bybees are made of, it is do they do anything? This started because I pointed out the large and small Bybee are of different construction. I really don't care if they are stuffed with salami.
The issue is can noise reduction be measured with a Bybee added to a circuit. SY has come to the conclusion the answer is no. I will post my technique and measurements on April 1st. (If I remember.) I think pretty much any further discussion has very little benefit.
So carbon nanotubes, crystals or salami is not the issue. If it can be reasonably and repeatably demonstrated that they do something then the next issue would be how do they do it. If the result is negative then explanation or speculation about an explanation is moot.
Now some folks believe they hear a difference, so what? That is their opinion based on some observation. We both believe that if there is a difference it should be measurable. The issue is what measurement and technique can show a difference. The explanation given in the advertising for many audio products is often wrong, doesn't mean there isn't something there. (Although one might wish to consider that when spending money.)
Good for those who look at their sound.
Makes sense for those who listen to music.
You are right, the poster said improve or degrade. That is a preference. You must listen for preference.
However, measurements can tell you if insertion of a device actually *changes* something.
If there is no change, how can you have an "ears only" preference?
However, measurements can tell you if insertion of a device actually *changes* something.
If there is no change, how can you have an "ears only" preference?
Baloney is more likely
It is unlikely, to be sure. But if someone provides good data showing audibility of something in the absence of measurable differences, that would certainly be evidence. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but it is within the realm of cosmic possibility.
Yes, that is exactly where the magic starts.... confusing possibility with probability.
In the hands of a subjectivist, possibility ( together with uncertainty and doubt ) is what allows science to be discarded altogether.
If you hear something that is immeasurable, one might say "let's find a measurement to explain this". Suppose we do. However, the statement that it is possible that there are things we might hear that cannot be measured still applies; it thus forms the basis for a type of "infinite regress" which discredits our ability to make measurements *a priori*.
In the hands of a subjectivist, possibility ( together with uncertainty and doubt ) is what allows science to be discarded altogether.
If you hear something that is immeasurable, one might say "let's find a measurement to explain this". Suppose we do. However, the statement that it is possible that there are things we might hear that cannot be measured still applies; it thus forms the basis for a type of "infinite regress" which discredits our ability to make measurements *a priori*.
That's actually the most fascinating aspect of this for me. Just stepping back and looking at what is going on: the people with what what you would think are valuable reputations to protect are actually going out and knowingly repeating nonsense for financial gain, not just taking a more defensible position of saying "I don't know what's going on inside". It's sort of good proof of the death of hifi: their existing reputations have little financial value on their own, they obviously don't have to protect their reputations for boardroom presentations at big companies, because those kind of boardroom presentations are long gone.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.