|
Cable Asylum Interconnects, speaker wire, power cords. Ask the Cable Guys. |
|
|
|
Cable Asylum Interconnects, speaker wire, power cords. Ask the Cable Guys. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Much Ado posted by Jon Risch on October 1, 2002 at 19:51:40:
As for what specifc post/s you have problems with folks sharing their experiences with materials and geometry, well, I speak from personal experience, as you do tend to focus on me and my posts.Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I doubt that I have a real need to provide any URL, your replies and comments have been more than once, and less than restrained.
Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I stand by my comments, you are 'guilty' of some of the very things you have railed against, and when the shoe is on the other foot, somehow, it just doesn't fit, at least in your mind.
Not one shred of substance or validation. Just more empty claims.
Weasel.
I do have to wonder why you were perusing the Kimber patent at all, not planning to patent your own particular braid and geometry, were you? ;-)
Not at all. I've no interest whatsoever in patenting anything.
Actually I was simply curious as to whether Kimber had patented his original three wire braid. At first I thought the 6,215,062 patent was it until I pulled it up and saw the illustrations.
Just an observation that you did seem rather pissed about it, and way disproportionate to the whole idea of "just trying this litz-wire braided cable thing out". I seriously doubt that Ray Kimber is going to knock down your door (Alright, open up! Cable police!) and have you hauled away because you braided up some interconnects.
The way I approached the issue (i.e. the "Attention Cable Braiders" topic and "...you are infringing on patent number...") was nothing more than sarcasm. I knew before I made the post that the patent was a load of BS because I knew others must have done the same thing well before 1999.
You have a mistaken idea about this, and despite my efforts to dispel it, you persist. As you are quite aware, I base my materials and geometry recommendations in large part on "That Which May Not Be Discussed (Or Even Mentioned In Front Of Steve, Ere He Explode With Outrage)" type listening tests. This goes a bit beyond simple personal preferences and biases. It is also wholly subjectively based, and based on extensive listening exprience under a variety of conditions.
Which amounts to nothing more than a big pile of claims without substance or validation that reside in the realm of sheer and total BS right alongside Dan's claims.
The bottom line is that you and your experience, tests, etc. are irrelevant and can be taken completely out of the equation. All that anyone need do is simply consider the objective specs, go for the best objective performance, and achieve the exact same result.
In any case, I go with what sounds the best, and make an effort to try and correlate that with the relevant factors as they are known at this time.
But what sounds best to you can be determined by others wholly exclusively of yourself by nothing more than objective specs. If it's objectively better, it must sound better.
Even when you're speculating as to causes with regard to why something sounds good (or why something sounds bad for that matter) to someone else, your analysis boils down to nothing more than your considering objective specs. If something sounds good to someone, you'll look for something that's objectively better to explain it. If something sounds bad, you'll look for something that's objectively worse to explain it.
Everything you say ultimately boils down to nothing more than objective specs.
As for my comment regarding shielding as reducing noise, that comment was made purely with regard to the physics of the matter. When I discuss physics, I keep it purely in the realm of the objective and make no claims or implications with regard to actual listening experiences.
[ It's this intolerance of yours that insists YOUR road is the ONLY valid road that I find so distasteful. ]
Well, you have made your feelings about me known quite vocally. I don't think that that is in question. What is in question is whether or not you are indeed correct, and that I actually do insist such as you say I do. I don't feel that I do, to any great extent.
Jon, just about every time anyone so much as suggests taking any path other than yours you jump in and start preaching your gospel as if you're trying to save people from a fate worse than death.
The most recent and obvious example of this was your reply to my Cable Asbolution post.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/59700.html
You either denounced, called into question or cast doubt on virtually everything regarding the wire used (or merely mentioned) based on objective specs.
Kynar? Too piezoelectric. That's out.
Tefzel? Well, you say you can't comment on the sound, but add caveats regarding more objective specs such as purity, processing, quality control.
Silver plated copper wire? That's out.
And after that, you call ME into question for having used cables made with polyethylene.
I'd cite more specific examples, but I've already provided more than you have regarding your claims against me and since no specific examples are good enough for you, I must be on pretty safe ground here.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Much Ado - Steve Eddy 22:02:36 10/01/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
