well beats me... I guess I'll just bang my head against a brick wall for a short time!
Or you can be productive and start a new thread detailing precisely what you're measuring, how you're measuring, details on the setup, what you're changing, and the measurements before and after.
you submitted an assumption based on fanciful ideas that are not rooted in reality
We normally reserve those for people, dagnabbit!
what assumption?
what idea?
what do you know about reality?
what are you on about?
short term memory loss? or denial?
couldnt help what? you have as yet supplied nothing, not even a theory, so yes 'improving' something above 'not suitable for anything at all' doesnt really seem much of a discovery.
either your measurement system, or base level crappier than thou performance are masking everything and you are being all illusive about its magical performances/attributes, despite not having a shred of evidence.
so yes; to me, banging your head against a brick wall seems a fair use of your time by comparison.
Last edited:
so yes; to me, banging your head against a brick wall seems a fair use of your time by comparison.
rofl
I do this for a living, Quisp.
It's qusp, John....
wait for graphene membranes !I don't like music,
I just listen to the HIFI...
Dither..
Shall I use polypropylene or paper in sugar water?
Will a piece of fools gold glued to a PCB absorb RFI???
Ahhh but if it has a diamond stylus..will it sound better than a sapphire
Hang on we can reflect for a moment...it must be the sap in the wood..
I'll give it a shake...it will sound better...
Regards
M. Gregg
John, both analogue stages and clocking is pretty well sorted, or do you insist that better than 200-500fs at 1-10ppm long term stability is not stable enough for audio, when the wow and flutter (analogue equivalent of close in phase noise) of even the best turntables is orders of magnitude higher?
You have it backwards, the world needs a study on adding the right spectra of frequency wander to more closely mimic the LP experience.
amiga comes to mind3. Computers were widely used for decades before PCs, including high quality graphics.
i remember quite well philips hifi stereos where it could burn a cd-r-w5. Other electronic systems were used very successfuly to do jobs which nowadays we do on a PC.
a bit expensive job back few fears, even on pc
today nobody burns cd´s..almost
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
OMG Quisp...
Perhaps the human ear and brain prefers certain types of distortions to others.
Carry on!
hes been doing it on and off for months, like many they just cant seem to spell it/see it without mentally inserting another vowel. John is the only one i've seen use an 'i' though, normally its an 'a'
its cool John, its not my actual name so I dont find it offensive. We have covered it before a few times in your thread though ... You arent the only one who does it, but it is strange what the brain does. lots of people see another invisible vowel there and like you, make up another 'name' that also doesnt have an English meaning.
there are far more complex usernames on here, i'm just missing an invisible vowel; but it really seems to mess with people's heads
there are far more complex usernames on here, i'm just missing an invisible vowel; but it really seems to mess with people's heads
Last edited:
OK, I take it you don't actually understand what a theory is.admc007 said:I haven't invented any theory, and even if I had, it's merely a theory!
I thought scientists didn't venerate Gods, but maybe they make an exception for Einstein.
Saying that Einstein is a genius is not veneration. I could have used other names (e.g. Feynman, Dirac), but non-scientists have probably heard of Einstein.
No. I said it might be snake oil. I said it might be a brilliant theory. It can't be both. However, you have told us that it is not a theory so you have invented something but you have no idea how it works. We can't say much more than expressing doubt because you have not told us enough.Now one or two have basically jumped at the chance to accuse me of snake oil theory! So well done there!
You have made two claims:
1. small speedup in a CPU - probably within the bounds of experimental error
2. small reduction in 'distortion' - but both before and after figures look wrong.
We have no reason to assume that either are well-founded.
No. I said it might be snake oil. I said it might be a brilliant theory. It can't be both.
Oh but maybe it can!
It's a Floorwax AND a Dessert topping!!
admc007, as I said earlier, adding anything such as you show to a digital line in going to change the lines characteristic impedance and create some discontinuity with its return path. At the high speeds the memory interfaces work both for the PC and the graphics memory, adding anything to the board can upset things. PC and graphics card layout is critical, as is impedance control is critical.
Without any explanation of the circuitry you have created, just claims how can we comment in a more refined fashion. I would also be curious how you determine your graphic card runs 4x faster.
I would hazard a guess that your device is some sort of filter, either using a ferrite bead or an inductor and some capacitance, and maybe a resistive element of some sort, that is placed in the line.
Without any explanation of the circuitry you have created, just claims how can we comment in a more refined fashion. I would also be curious how you determine your graphic card runs 4x faster.
I would hazard a guess that your device is some sort of filter, either using a ferrite bead or an inductor and some capacitance, and maybe a resistive element of some sort, that is placed in the line.
would you be impressed if I sold them for 5 cents each?
Absolutely not.
Would you be impressed if I sold gold foiled horse dung for a quarter?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Funniest snake oil theories