opaqueice;237077 Wrote:
> What utter nincompoops.
Opequeice, that is pure genius!
I tip my hat to you :)
--
funkstar
funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335
View this thread: http://forum
The best part of all is this
(http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm):
Pear Cables Wrote:
>
>
> Finest Materials
>
> The ANJOU Speaker Cable utilizes the *finest materials* to maximize
> sonic performance and provide years of stable operation. Teflon, air,
> cotton, and fully anne
servies;237065 Wrote:
> As expected...
And although it is being regarded as Pear chickening out, I doubt it'll
affect their sales. Their customers are unlikely to have value for money
concerns in the first place.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/more-bull/pear-cables-withdraws-from-james-randis-1m-ch
As expected...
--
servies
servies's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9496
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38902
___
audi
Strangely, PEAR have withdrawn from having their cables tested.
http://tinyurl.com/2jzuok
--
nicktf
nicktf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=329
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sho
The thing is that good cables are worth the money. Changing the cheap
off the rack RCA connectors, or upgrading the "free" loudspeaker cable
does provide one with the ability to tighten overall performance.
But I said good cables. I have listened to highly acclaimed $2,000
cables in my main syste
Rowe, Christopher;235377 Wrote:
> >Jitterbug;235324 Wrote:
> >> This should be interesting; Pear Cable has accepted the challenge.
> >>
> >> "...Michael Fremer, writer for Stereophile Magazine and
> musicangle.com,
> >> has agreed to double-blind listening tests to prove that cables can
> be
> >>
SumnerH;235432 Wrote:
> You think? I find relativity to have more "magic" formulas than
> quantum; the one "unaesthetic" thing about QM is accepting that the
> physics is not deterministic, but that strikes me as being perhaps a
> human bias rather than a real objection.
Well, I certainly reali
JimC;235421 Wrote:
>
> Are your public lectures going to be in California, by any chance? I'd
> be of a mind to attend, if that's possible.
>
They will be in New York City. But there are public lectures now and
then at Stanford - you might check the physics department website.
darrenyeats;2
opaqueice;235411 Wrote:
>
> Physics is weird and non-intuitive, and the only way to understand it
> is to approach is carefully, systematically, and mathematically. It's
> very difficult to communicate it to a lay audience without simplifying
> it to the point of basically lying.
Like anything
jeffmeh;235415 Wrote:
> Best of luck trying to explain quantum mechanics to a layperson, lol. I
> qualify as such, although I have a higher math background and have done
> a fair amount of reading on the subject.
>
> I realize that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" (Tower of
> Power,
opaqueice;235411 Wrote:
> I probably know him.
>
> I think the thing to remember here is what Darwin taught us. Our
> ancestors had to have a very good intuition for human-scale classical
> mechanics - like predicting the trajectory of a rock through the air.
> If they didn't they died. And i
Best of luck trying to explain quantum mechanics to a layperson, lol. I
qualify as such, although I have a higher math background and have done
a fair amount of reading on the subject.
I realize that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" (Tower of
Power, anyone), but QM appears to me to be a
JimC;234687 Wrote:
> My cousin is a professor and research physicist at Stanford, working on
> the SLA. I'm a pretty smart guy by most measures of intelligence and
> can hold my own with him on a wide variety of topics. I once asked him
> if he could explain QM to me.
>
I probably know him.
Jitterbug;235324 Wrote:
> This should be interesting; Pear Cable has accepted the challenge.
>
> "...Michael Fremer, writer for Stereophile Magazine and musicangle.com,
> has agreed to double-blind listening tests to prove that cables can be
> differentiated sonically..."
>
> http://gizmodo.co
cliveb;234825 Wrote:
> I don't think that's correct. Firstly, you'd need to get the gain
> staging absolutely right. Secondly, even if you do get the gain staging
> spot-on, no DAC or ADC is perfect, so you ought to expect a change in
> the least significant bits.
>
> But no matter
>
> If y
This should be interesting; Pear Cable has accepted the challenge.
"...Michael Fremer, writer for Stereophile Magazine and musicangle.com,
has agreed to double-blind listening tests to prove that cables can be
differentiated sonically..."
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bullshit/pear-cable-a
Phil Leigh;234683 Wrote:
> start with a CD track - so we know exactly what the bits are. put
> through a good DAC and analogue interconnects to a suitable high
> quality and calibrated ADC - record the bits. Compare the recorded bits
> with the original bits. Any change must be induced by the cab
opaqueice;234637 Wrote:
> Haha, that's funny... I thought exactly the same thing when I read that
> post! I had a little of that sinking feeling I get at cocktail parties
> when someone finds out I'm a physicist and brings up QM - that
> how-can-I-explain-politely-that-you-have-absolutely-no-id
JimC;234687 Wrote:
> My cousin is a professor and research physicist at Stanford, working on
> the SLA. I'm a pretty smart guy by most measures of intelligence and
> can hold my own with him on a wide variety of topics. I once asked him
> if he could explain QM to me.
>
> As he is family, he d
If I had to guess at what the difference is between a better performing
cable and an inferior cable, for instance the Belden 1800f vs Monster
cable or Whirlwind as the inferior cable, it would be a combination of
frequency response and distortion. The more accurate the playback
equipment and roo
I think he meant that he could explain it, but the simple fact that you
heard what he said changed it's meaning.
Not to mention that we couldn't possibly know how to test for
everything that might effect the sound as it traveled from his mouth to
your ears.
Mike
--
mvalera
Michael Valera
Onl
I suppose he meant that he could probably explain it and that you
probably wouldn't understand it... ;o)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some
ve
opaqueice;234637 Wrote:
> Haha, that's funny... I thought exactly the same thing when I read that
> post! I had a little of that sinking feeling I get at cocktail parties
> when someone finds out I'm a physicist and brings up QM - that
> how-can-I-explain-politely-that-you-have-absolutely-no-id
Here's a test:
start with a CD track - so we know exactly what the bits are. put
through a good DAC and analogue interconnects to a suitable high
quality and calibrated ADC - record the bits. Compare the recorded bits
with the original bits. Any change must be induced by the cable. Repeat
with en
25 matches
Mail list logo
