This is just too funny not to pass along. What's worse, the cable has been reviewed and they agree that it sounds better!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
-
-
The real joke is that those idiotic reviews are mostly made by (late) middle aged men whose hearing has already become sub par.
The reviewer is about 60 years old:
Last edited by newpball; 10th Feb 2015 at 20:59.
-
All my switches are Linksys SE2800 (£39) Gigabit types.
I guess the manufacturer got the review they paid for.Last edited by jagabo; 11th Feb 2015 at 05:28.
-
I doubt age has anything to do with it. Someone who's spent a lot of time listening to audio and evaluating various equipment.... who might be thought of as an audiophile.... is far more likely to have well trained hearing, even if they aren't ten years old.
Mind you it does seem to prove it's far easier to hear a difference than it is not to hear one when making comparisons.
Nobody in their right mind would claim you can change the quality of a digital file when copying it from a NAS to a PC by using a different ethernet cable. It either copies to the PC or it doesn't. But use the same PC to play audio stored on a NAS and somehow it makes a difference to the quality? This guy seems to think so. http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-ethernet-cables
Isolate your speakers from seismic activity for a better sound.
http://www.the-ear.net/features/ready-rumble -
That's ridiculous. Copying a file from the network to your PC or playing that same file directly without copying it is basically the same thing. In both cases you're transferring the data to the PC. Claiming that the quality of the cable can have some kind of impact on sound quality makes no sense at all.
Of course, since audiophilia is nothing but a religion (hence dogmatic), you cannot expect to make any sense of it."The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." -
It's looks as though the idea that they're putting forth is that somehow misreads are delaying the processing of certain sounds in barely perceivable ways that nevertheless degrade the quality of the audio. That would be what caching is for. If they're equipment is so terrible that it can't cache several seconds of 24 bit 7.1 PCM in advance and their Gigabit Ethernet (or even Fast Ethernet) is so error prone that it can't manage to reliably pump through 10mbps then they really ought to have been informed that there are better places they could have spent that $10000 than a cable.
-
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
-
-
Note that your ability to hear high frequencies falls off as you age. At 60 the author probably can't hear anything above 10 to 12 KHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHosAyfhSpA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxcbppCX6Rk
Be sure to watch the HD versions because the lower res videos have their audio run through a low pass filter leaving nothing above 15 KHz. Even the 720p encodings don't have anything over 18 KHz.Last edited by jagabo; 11th Feb 2015 at 12:29.
-
I miss one thing - rubidium/cesium atomic clock to provide reference timing - hilarious... foolquest in lead...
btw instead 10k for piece of copper i would go for fiber optic... galvanic isolation as a bonus. -
I'm not surprised. Get a load of this thread at AVS:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1460665-have-you-heard-exotic-au...d-quality.html
657 posts and counting.Pull! Bang! Darn!