sy, two things.
"evidence" true. but, i have a feeling there is lots of evidence floating around for all kinds of stuff that we dont have the knowhow to see yet.
i like and, totaly agree with your dictum.
i personaly dont agree with and am happy i cant hear any diffrence in tweeks i find unfounded.
but then thats my happieness.
two....
i didnt know the greese thing way cool.
"evidence" true. but, i have a feeling there is lots of evidence floating around for all kinds of stuff that we dont have the knowhow to see yet.
i like and, totaly agree with your dictum.
i personaly dont agree with and am happy i cant hear any diffrence in tweeks i find unfounded.
but then thats my happieness.
two....
i didnt know the greese thing way cool.
Well, at least at the LHC they haven't spent a lot of money, done things on a large scale, using lots of power and exotic technology to try and resolve something at low levels, which is hard to measure and may not really be there at all - shows how sensible scientists and engineers do things properly ...
Indeed. And in many places today, still true, sadly enough. But the nice thing about modern science is the self-correcting nature, which even the most ignorant politicians and religious leaders can't hold back. Further, I cannot say without violating Forum rules.
It is indeed. Like many, I was taught in school that Columbus was the rebel that the flat earthers tried to ignore, but it was a legend- educated people had known since Pythagoras that the Earth was spherical. Eratosthenes got the circumference right within 15%. Columbus was a bit of a crank who was convinced that the Greeks were wrong and that the Earth was very much smaller than that. Ooops.
I have known about those silly devices for years on end. Quantum BS galore. I always love it when these people that make these snake oil products add things like " I worked for NASA, blah blah blah". Yeah but what position, janitor?
Shoulda just fedex it!
Very interesting. It takes me by suprise how smart some of those men where.
I can't figure out my phone somtimes letalone the tools they used to figure out some of the stuff they did.
I wonder if anyone will look on us that way? "They used MAPS? No GPS?"
On topic....
I have heard some weird stuff. But my fav was the cable chargers to refill the used electrons in the copper.
I have heard some high $ cabels on realy nice gear and not heard a diffrence.
But could be my ears.
I go for high quality. Well built stuff that is going to last.
I got some free conector cleaning spray from work. It was the same stuff that sells for 100$ plus on audio parts web sites. It cleaned my wires and conectors great. Nice and sparkley clean but, never heard a diffrence.
I got it free cuz they bought it to clean the connectors on a heat measuring setup but the film it left behind was causing crosstalk at hight feq.
Not audio... Like light high.
Very interesting. It takes me by suprise how smart some of those men where.
I can't figure out my phone somtimes letalone the tools they used to figure out some of the stuff they did.
I wonder if anyone will look on us that way? "They used MAPS? No GPS?"
On topic....
I have heard some weird stuff. But my fav was the cable chargers to refill the used electrons in the copper.
I have heard some high $ cabels on realy nice gear and not heard a diffrence.
But could be my ears.
I go for high quality. Well built stuff that is going to last.
I got some free conector cleaning spray from work. It was the same stuff that sells for 100$ plus on audio parts web sites. It cleaned my wires and conectors great. Nice and sparkley clean but, never heard a diffrence.
I got it free cuz they bought it to clean the connectors on a heat measuring setup but the film it left behind was causing crosstalk at hight feq.
Not audio... Like light high.
yawn.Well, at least at the LHC they haven't spent a lot of money, done things on a large scale, using lots of power and exotic technology to try and resolve something at low levels, which is hard to measure and may not really be there at all - shows how sensible scientists and engineers do things properly ...
audiophiles do "blind" cable evaluation. they change an amp in the middle (forget about level matching, that's for the narrow minded type) and seem to have their own version of statistical analysis. 50/50 rate seems to mean "a large group of people showed preference".
The Audio Society of Minnesota Conducts Cable Comparison Tests | Stereophile.com
and the best part is:
Depending upon their geometry and insulation, they need time to settle in after being moved. As Keith Johnson once explained to me, in the case of Teflon, when you move it around, microscopic fissures appear that need a day or so to smooth over and no longer affect the sound.
do not, I repeat, DO NOT, let anyone (especially objectivists) touch your system for at least 24 hours prior to audition! unexpected and disastrous results may occur. safety measures as armored doors are recommended. audio is serious business.
The idea that moving (actually, flexing) an insulator could create temporary changes which then need to 'self-anneal' is not daft at all. The daft bit is that this will affect sound. Well, actually, it could affect sound but only in an appallingly bad system with very high output impedances and very microphonic cables. Did anyone say 'high end'?
Pictures at the Dutch audio forum indicated it's a ceramic encapsulated Walmart, in an exotic fits-all condom. (strawberry, I seem to recall)
one of the most common excuses for these theories is "there is some rationale for it, so it must make an audible difference".
didn't you notice it? "measurements don't correlate woth sound" and "there is a physical explanation so it makes an audible difference".
it's like playing a game with no rules at all.
Last edited:
Interesting that even though I have said many times that I have no interest in the "magic" stuff there seems to be an almost desparate need to believe that I would take them on board. Just the fact that I would acknowledge that they could have an effect is enough to do the damage ...
What interests me is stopping audio systems from being sensitive to "silly" things being done - the word to be used here is 'robust'. In the computing world a language I had a great deal of interest in was Eiffel, and the book that described the philosophy and underpinnings of the structure of that language was a superb piece of logical, and thoroughly convincing writing - highly inspirational. The end game here is to create a method of writing software that can be proven, in the true mathematical sense, to be correct ... still some way from achieving that goal, but an admirable journey ...
Now, two terms that Meyer, 'Mr Eiffel', discusses, IMO in a very astute and useful way, are 'correctness' and 'robustness'. And, in a sense I'm following a similar philosophy in my delvings into audio, making it very much a satisfying journey in this field too ...
What interests me is stopping audio systems from being sensitive to "silly" things being done - the word to be used here is 'robust'. In the computing world a language I had a great deal of interest in was Eiffel, and the book that described the philosophy and underpinnings of the structure of that language was a superb piece of logical, and thoroughly convincing writing - highly inspirational. The end game here is to create a method of writing software that can be proven, in the true mathematical sense, to be correct ... still some way from achieving that goal, but an admirable journey ...
Now, two terms that Meyer, 'Mr Eiffel', discusses, IMO in a very astute and useful way, are 'correctness' and 'robustness'. And, in a sense I'm following a similar philosophy in my delvings into audio, making it very much a satisfying journey in this field too ...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.