Cable directionality & cables

Originally posted by michaelab
Hmmm....like Margaret Thatcher :D (who was a chemist).

Michael.
Click to expand...
And d'you know what she did her degree dissertation on?
The Langmuir Trough Experiment - one of the most boring things in this whole wide world this side of Norah Jones.

Me? I was not really too into physical chemistry to tell the truth, I got into cyclohexylphosphene nickel (2) halides of all things - simply to disprove Cotton and Wilkinson :D

Now? I'm a builder having disgarded the life of a BBC sound engineer, where cables were only directional in terms of where a male and female plug would fit ;)
After all, as has been said earlier, it's all AC FFS!

But if folks want to spend their money I'd prefer it to be on the latest wizzbang-one-way cable than giving a penny to Will Young and his Satanic Hordes!
 
Originally posted by leonard smalls
Me? I was not really too into physical chemistry to tell the truth, I got into cyclohexylphosphene nickel (2) halides of all things - simply to disprove Cotton and Wilkinson :D
Click to expand...

Wonderful!

I got into sulphates and THC at about the same time. That's what i call physical chemistry;)
 
Originally posted by The Devil
P.S. Humour me, I need a good laugh. What are the differences? On the Naim forum, the wise elders decree that the Masters at Naim have verily ****ed-up: the forum elders think that the new Burndy sounds best the wrong way round. What say you, o Terry?
Click to expand...

Humouring the devil seems seems an unlikely possibility. :p

It was due to a email I received from one of the above mentioned 'elders' that I tried my burndy the other way round. The sound is quite different! I am not saying better - just different. I would have to enter into a period of serious listening to decide which direction suits me better but as I am not into listening to cables I decided that the Naim defined direction would suffice. One of the reasons I use Naim is to avoid the cable torment.

Try it James. It would be time better spent than sitting at the computer posting more nonsense on multiple Forums. :D

Terry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by leonard smalls
I got into cyclohexylphosphene nickel (2) halides of all things - simply to disprove Cotton and Wilkinson :D
Click to expand...
So that looks like pp 899-900 then :D . Actually I found C&W to be the best cure for insomnia man has yet invented - until I had to read through the DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) specifications recently. Does wake you up with a nasty jolt (and not insubstantial bruises) though when it falls on your face! :zzzz: :yikes:

(Actually C&W it still takes the prize over the DICOM specs - as you spend so much time cross-referencing between the 13+ separate DICOM manuals you never get the chance to :zzzz:....ah maybe that's why they do it like that)
 
Originally posted by wolfgang
If you would so kindly allows me to ask you a question. For the sake of scientific curiosity, if this cable of yours seems to have a 'directionality' and it is not due to shielding and you notice this audible differences with a single blind comparison I for one would be keen to hear more about your finding. Since some has suggested I could appear a bit 'arrogant' when asking too many question like this, I am not saying you are lying or delusional. I think it is only natural when you share something we are allowed at less ask for little bit of detail of the circumstances of your listening tests. Hope I have not come across as impolite and cynical.
Click to expand...

Wolfgang
Recently I engaged in a marathon discussion on the LS3/5a Mail List about the virtues and otherwise of double blind and 'sounds of cables'. I am really sorry but I honestly haven't the time and energy to start all over again. Might I suggest that you search on that 'Forum' and read the posts there. It was a very heated but balanced argument. Regarding the burndy I suggest that you search the Naim Forum and you will get all sides of the argument. I am sure I have nothing more to add to what is said there.
Aplogies.
Terry
 
Originally posted by Terry
Try it James. It would be time better spent than sitting at the computer posting more nonsense on multiple Forums.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, o Terry. It would be a complete waste of time rather than a partial one, and besides, I am not qualified like what you are.

All you are demonstrating is your credulity.
 
Originally posted by GrahamN
So that looks like pp 899-900 then :D .
Click to expand...

p790 in mine - it's only the 4th edition...
They probably got it right in yours, saying it was a square planar complex for the iodide and more mishahpen for the smaller halides.
Still, dull as it is doesn't come close to Laidler's "Chemical Kinetics" or "Statistical Mechanics"...
Or even anything by Philip Glass :D
 
Re my gripes with the TCI Constrictors (Irish company)... I am beginning to conclude we are seeing an evolution in the retailing market here... where once upon a time you would have seen ladies of an Irish persuasion selling lucky lavender on street corners - these same womenfolk have retreated to their homes to weave together mains cables to bring you that same luck to your beloved hifi systems... (before you all deploy the WMDs at me - I am not making a racial statement here - simply a marketing one).
 
This cable directionality stuff kind of reminds me of the true story told of Nils Bohr, the great Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Above the front door of his country cottage in Tisvilde, Bohr had nailed a horseshoe.

An American physicist was visiting Bohr's house and, seeing the horseshoe said: "Surely you don't really believe the superstition that a horseshoe brings luck?" "

"No", answered Bohr, "Of course not. But I understand that it works whether you believe in it or not".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by leonard smalls
p790 in mine - it's only the 4th edition...
Click to expand...
Nope...that's all Rhodium catalysis in mine. Maybe they hadn't discovered it (right or wrong) when I was (not) doing it...mine's a disturbingly pristine copy of the 3rd edition. I actually quite liked Statisical Mechanics (although can hardly even remember what it's about now).

I think you need to chill out to some Feldman - Glass is far too exciting.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top