|
dealmaster posted:I think it was actually coat hangers. It was. http://consumerist.com/362926/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
I imagine their debunking of double blind testing is along the lines of "well clearly double blind testing does not work because the subjects aren't choosing the clearly superior <whatever>"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
elmwood posted:This thread simply must be experienced on a vintage tube-based PC. It offers a much warmer, richer datastage that gives the Something Awful experience a level of authenticity and depth that cannot be experienced with mere solid state circuity alone. Analog computing is about as pure as it gets indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 05:02
|
|
|
kyy posted:Good timing? That article was written in 1957. This was the appropriate news article burn-in time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 04:56
|
|
|
Perform all non-double-blind testing inside a pure helium environment for the best sound if you want to die
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
Promoted Pawn posted:Use mineral oil instead of water to make it more plausible (it won't short the electronics) and expensive. Now you're talking. But to make it plausible to audiophiles you would have to put it in an inverted glass pyramid shape, mounted on a sound dampening pedestal made of teak and canary beaks. Claim it broadens the auravisual potency of the pathways of the bits that aren't played from any CD or DVD (get the videophiles too). edit: don't forget the expensive (but super cheap compared to the selling price of the item) box to store it in when not in use mr. nobody fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
porksmash posted:Has anyone seen or heard of the rotary subwoofer? (and another link). It's one way of reproducing those frequencies below the usual 15-18Hz that most conventional subwoofers start sucking at. I can't see how this WOULDN'T affect emotional response to say, a t-rex stomping around in Jurassic Park. That's pretty cool, and while probably expensive(?) not really audiophile type stuff because there actually is science and a reason behind it. Putting a little pebble 3m away from it to produce a more vibrant soundstage, that would be audiophile material.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
eddiewalker posted:I tried arguing with a logical explanation, but for some reason he's a highly regarded poster. I propose that popularity in the audiophile world is inversely proportional to the amount of logical thinking you possess or display.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
quote:Tubes sound less tubey SCIENCE Isn't the idea of spending a hojillion dollars on tubes so that you get that "tubular" sound. After spending your fortune on tubes you then spend another fortune on voodoo magic blocks to get rid of the sound you spent lots of money going for. Synergy of the dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 05:48
|
|
|
Neurophonic posted:It quantums your particles, duh. It's all relative. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 17:07
|
|
|
quote:High energy rays from space which, in space, are primarily protons (92%) and alpha particles (6%). In space, cosmic rays come from all directions. So putting one of these $1000 dollar things randomly around your equipment, even if it did exactly what it claims, wouldn't do anything in reality unless you completely surrounded your equipment in all directions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 23:32
|
|
|
Elentor posted:It's all in the small details you cannot notice, young man. Even if you are not conscious, these noises beyond our frequency range will affect your subconscious to reduce your enjoyment of music. This post really brightened up the forum's sub-aural soundstage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2009 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
proudfoot posted:Theres a pretty big difference between being a fanboy of a product, and defending it, compared to the absolute utter bullshit spewed out by a company CEO. CEO wins because he at least knows it's bullshit?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2010 04:25
|
|