Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Humorus site of the day.. This can\'t be real? (Read 7861 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Humorus site of the day.. This can\'t be real?

Reply #25 –
Quoting Cable tweak section:

Very little/no insulation: Lets all sing together "There's no insulation, like no insulation, like no insulation, at all". All insulation materials suck. I've taken insulation off wires for years and they almost always sound better naked. Peter Moncrief was one of the first to say that our revered Teflon sucks. Have you noticed the "air dialectric" buzzword lately. More and more people are hanging wires in the air or putting them in large teflon tubes or in highly expanded braids made from Mylar, Polyethylene or Teflon. Some people are using enameled high purity magnet wire with no other insulation.




ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Humorus site of the day.. This can\'t be real?

Reply #26 –
Quote
Originally posted by Pio2001
Light has no electric charge, so it's not sensitive to static charges, but the plastic lens could be pulled or pushed by alternating +/- charges running in front of it.

I don't know if it can affect the sound since I've run no blind test. Without at least either blind tests results, or complete calcultaions of the mechanical effect on the lens from the charge in Coulomb, the force in Newtons, etc, there is no possible conclusion.

I don't believe blindly in those audiophile tweaks, but I don't reject them blindly either. I just want proofs.


I understand with an analog sources how little tweaks can be applied but with digital?

Humorus site of the day.. This can\'t be real?

Reply #27 –
Cheap converters don't do a good job at rejecting jitter, when the digital audio data sent to them has too much jitter, though no errors, the sound can become bad.
Problems with the lens will affect the jitter of the EFM (raw) signal read by the laser.
How jitter in this raw signal can in turn affect the jitter of the decoded data sent to the converter, if it can, is not known for sure (it has not been directly measured). The usual explanation is that the current used for the servo engine that spins the CD (or move the lens, I assume) affects the small power supply of the CD player, which in turn affects the master clock that drives the converter.