luvdunhill

wish I could have been there

I think Victor Khomenko first used the term for the 6H30P.

The SPU mono I have is absolutely fantastic. Makes me very curious of the stereo versions.

oh?

It also drives orthos amazingly well. It's probably in my top 2 portable amps for sure.

about to do the awesomest flight schedule ever. Myrtle Beach to Newark, then Newark to Austin.

exactly! NOS USB cable with "Power Wraps" from Percy on both ends is what I'd recommend. Use the spacing of the Power Wraps to tune the sound to your particular preference. I find 0.5" spacing to be the best for rock and e^-1 spacing better for classical.. but it's nice to be able to change them on the fly.

I cannot help but think you aren't hearing right if you are trying to put the BHSE and transformer box on a similar level.

I find that NOS DACs are better paired with vintage USB cables. The older the better.

without talking about topology, I can say yes. Many people feel the 6SN7 is the perfect audio tube from a design standpoint.

All I really want to see are pics of Blutarsky. I mean, does that guy really exist?

Re edged an Infinity Perfect 12. Turned out pretty well.. Will post pics later!

wow, fetch is still around? I remember using that back in the day. Does it still have the terrier dog icon?

nice base plate. I'm not sure where to find something like that though.

will the Starving Student stuff just pop up at beezar.com?

air conducts. You just need hotter outputs, that's all.

Looks like I'm traveling this weekend after all... unfortunately, the wrong way... to Myrtle Beach

obviously you're not in the know... check this thread out: diyAudio Forums - Y B Blue - how blue LED improves the CD playback - Page 1 I dare Reks to double blind that shit... edit:

not as funny as it would be the second time

hum .... diyAudio Forums - Twisted Pear Audio - ESS Sabre Buffalo DAC - Page 76

usually the outlets are limited to 25W or so.

Smeggy, what does your source output?

There are two main approaches here. Maintain a constant linear velocity, in which case the disc spins slower as you move outside on the disc, thus keeping the overall transfer rate constant. The second is a constant angular velocity in which the disc spins the same speed, but the transfer rate changes depending where on the disc you are located. In fact, I'd argue that the later are better for audio, as since the speed doesn't change, the mechanisms can be made to be significantly quieter. Furthermore, since data transfer speed isn't all that important in audio it's a viable solution. The later is indeed what the CEC belt driver players use and the former is what most modern CD/DVD drives use.

My point isn't to use multiple cables, I agree that your finding are probable. I'm suggesting using multiple systems, as this is from a scientific standpoint where you'll probably see tractable differences. I'm citing technical reasons for why you have an endemic bias in your setup. Since other systems may be more prone to RLC differences that cables present to the system (a statement you agreed with) then you cannot claim that there is no difference until you've tried your experiment on their particular system. finally we've gotten to the good ole fashion way to handle these debates. Just disproving of what's taught in grade school. Like I said, there are methods, like the ones outlined above, that are used to deal with real world covariance and variable dependency. I'm not disproving the scientific theory, just saying that there are ways to handle more complex tests that are equally valid. You said that single variable tests are the only valid tests, of course this is false.

that's fair. I just want to point out that some systems are more prone to difference in cables at a technical level. Just because you tried this test in a single system, doesn't mean *you* can reproduce it in other systems. This is what you're implying.