Does high quality digital cables matter?

EndersShadow

villian wrote: »

Still garbage. Not professional level. Read the package. Total garbage (The ones from RadioShack). They meter something in the 5k to 10k range and only to 85db. +- 5db. Good luck with that.

And how many people do you think will run out and buy professional gear just to measure SPL? Not this guy... I just use my SPL meter or UMIK-1 USB mic w/ REW... which I am sure isn't professional enough for you either...

Habanero Monk

EndersShadow wrote: »

And how many people do you think will run out and buy professional gear just to measure SPL? Not this guy... I just use my SPL meter or UMIK-1 USB mic w/ REW... which I am sure isn't professional enough for you either...

I believe anyone serious enough about it will. I picked my Omni-Mic for $199 at last years GTG. It's been a great learning tool also.

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

So then the question becomes...

What is the sound of light?

The question is are you really as ignorant as suggested by your posts, or are you just a troll? I suspect both are correct.

BlueFox

Apparently, the usual suspects do not understand how to read, or use, an SPL meter. While it certainly is desireable to have accurate readings, it is not necessary for most home applications. Whether the meter reads 70db or 75db is irrelevant when balancing speaker output. As long as the meter provides the same level for the same input then the speakers are balanced, whether the meter reads 70db or 80db. For actual SPL measurements then of course it should be accurate, but consistency is more important for many uses.

In so far as phone apps, iPad apps, or Radio Shack SPL meters, they are all reasonably useful. I use my RS meter as the standard, and then adjust the apps on the iPhone and iPad to be the same as the RS meter. This is more than adequate to allow me to get an idea as to the level as I crank the volume through various settings. Whether it is +/- 5db is irrelevant.

villian

EndersShadow wrote: »

And how many people do you think will run out and buy professional gear just to measure SPL? Not this guy... I just use my SPL meter or UMIK-1 USB mic w/ REW... which I am sure isn't professional enough for you either...

How many are going to spend $300 plus for a 3 inch Jumper?




You done with the rhetorical questions? I'm ready to get back to the discussion at hand whenever you are. Paint me as a troll all day long, but you guys are the ones detracting from the conversation.

villian

BlueFox wrote: »

Apparently, the usual suspects do not understand how to read, or use, an SPL meter. While it certainly is desireable to have accurate readings, it is not necessary for most home applications. Whether the meter reads 70db or 75db is irrelevant when balancing speaker output. As long as the meter provides the same level for the same input then the speakers are balanced, whether the meter reads 70db or 80db. For actual SPL measurements then of course it should be accurate, but consistency is more important for many uses.

In so far as phone apps, iPad apps, or Radio Shack SPL meters, they are all reasonably useful. I use my RS meter as the standard, and then adjust the apps on the iPhone and iPad to be the same as the RS meter. This is more than adequate to allow me to get an idea as to the level as I crank the volume through various settings. Whether it is +/- 5db is irrelevant.

You didn't seriously just post this did you?

So let me get this straight. You guys, yes I'm generalizing because almost everyone in this thread seems to have the same thought process as yourself and warrants being lumped together as "You people", believe in fighting days on end over digital signals and Jitter below a 100db threshold, yet you're going to stand up and support some of the crappiest microphones on Earth for measuring and calibrating your system? Seriously.

And we wonder why all the other forums think Polk Forums are a joke...

I can't even think of an analogy for this one. Habanero?

villian

Just thought of an analogy.

Claiming that the quality of microphone used to calibrate an audio system doesn't matter, while every single other thing does is like walking in to a Tesla car dealership and debating the merits of Lithium vs Nickel Cadium batteries with Elon Musk himself, only to later state that the size and performance of the battery has no impact on the driving range of the car.


Might as well lock the thread. Case closed.

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

You didn't seriously just post this did you?

I sure did. And as expected, you do not have the slightest understanding of how any meter works, let alone an SPL meter. Nor do you have even a grade school level of reading comprehension. Keep it up troll.

villian

Try again. I have two award winning SPL rigs. 158.3 db is the highest I've metered, and that's nothing. I get the concept of what you're saying, but refuting it as it's a solid concept but nothing beyond a basic concept. There's so many things that you fail to address. Positioning, room gain at each point, timbre matching, driver dissipation, electrical heat loss on the spiders and tinsel leads, the variations of each, cone flex and how that can vary each and every second, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the inherent failure of a cheap SPL meter to meter consistently...not even accurately..but consistently.

tonyb

villian wrote: »

And we wonder why all the other forums think Polk Forums are a joke...

No...."we" don't wonder....you do. Which begs to question then, why are you here ?

villian

tonyb wrote: »

No...."we" don't wonder....you do. Which begs to question then, why are you here ?

Because I'm a Polk enthusiast. Even with all the pin heads on here.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

No...."we" don't wonder....you do. Which begs to question then, why are you here ?

Along with trolling, he appears to be insecure, and is trying to impress people by cutting and pasting from various sites. For example, how many people check their HT setup by using "Positioning, room gain at each point, timbre matching, driver dissipation, electrical heat loss on the spiders and tinsel leads, the variations of each, cone flex and how that can vary each and every second, etc, etc, etc.".

That statement on using an SPL for HT calibration is beyond stupid. As mentioned, the only thing really relevant is a consistent reading when comparing speaker output. If the left says 70, and the right says 70 when using the same meter from the same listening position then you are okay. I suppose it is theoretically possible your SPL meter could be broken, and give different readings for the same SPL, but that applies to both a $50 meter and a $500 meter.

DarqueKnight

First you said this:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

DK's welcome point about transporting car parts via ship makes my point:

Then, when I pointed out that you misunderstood and my analogy could not be used for your cause, you said this:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You are the one that use the car and ship analogy. Not me. I can't help it if people have to resort to analogies (even cake recipes which is even worse and makes ZERO sense) that show their lack of a full understanding of what is going on.

So, "resorting" to analogies is a "welcome point" when you think it agrees with you, but it's a bad thing when it disagrees with you. Seems like sour grapes to me.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Cars and Data have the ability to be broken down into it's constituent parts and then fully reassembled. Baking a cake is an irreversible chemical process.

My car disassembly analogy was used in response to this comment:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Ethernet is a CMNR, Differential, Galvonically isolated, fixed frequency, high bandwidth (comparatively to RCA, XLR, SP/DIF, AES-EBU, I2s, Toslink), fully duplex, solution. It isn't passing 20hz to 20Khz multi-frequency signals.

You think that digitizing a wideband multi-frequency signal no longer makes it a wideband multi-frequency signal. The digitized form is still wideband and multi-frequency, it is just converted to discrete components.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If you see container after container of parts, you are shipping parts. It doesn't matter. Packet data is data that is disassembled, transmitted, reassembled on the other end.

If a car manufacturer is disassembling cars to avoid higher taxes on completely assembled automobiles, would the court accept that explanation?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

You let me know when you find there is more 'noise', directionally speaking, on a BJC vs Audioquest cable that is at a threshold of human hearing

Will do. I have tested analog signal cables and audio grade fuses for noise directionality and found noise performance, and sound, to be better in one direction than the other. I have not done such testing with digital cables.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I could point out another article were Dennis Murphy, and Jim Salk either had some MIT or AQ reps (forget which company) in a room on seriously high resolution gear and couldn't pick out their own speaker cables.

Again, would you cite the reference to the article? I, and I am sure others, would like to read it.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I believe he has a stereo system.

He does...and he said he prefers to listen to "mono-like" recordings.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So yes. I've read your linked posts of his and believe your interpretation of them is as far off that mark as your understanding of packet data.

You are entitled to your "belief". Fortunately, the people who have been paying me to do packet network research and development for the last 20 years did not and do not share your "belief".

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Arny came up with a method of AB/X for audio.

Then he should say that rather than running all over the Internet saying "I invented ABX". ABX methods for evaluating monophonic telephone signals were used by Bell Laboratories scientists decades before Arny came up with his ABX switchbox. In the sensory science literature, the ABX test is referred to as the "duo trio-balanced reference" test. It was invented by D.R. Peryam and V.W. Swartz and published in 1950. (Citation: D. R. Peryam and V. W. Swartz, "Measurement of Sensory Differences," Food Technology, Vol. 5, 1950, pp. 207-210).

The duo-trio balanced reference (ABX) test has the following requirements:

1. An ABX (duo-trio balanced reference) test generally requires a subject population of at least 16 persons. Optimum subject population is at least 32 or more persons.

2. An ABX (duo-trio balanced reference) test which employs a subject size of less than 28 persons generates high rates of beta error (false negatives or "no differences between samples") in the results.

3. An ABX (duo-trio balanced reference) test must compare samples which are unknown (unfamiliar) to the test subjects.

4. An ABX (duo-trio balanced reference) test must use untrained test subjects.

Generally, duo-trio balanced reference (ABX) tests are administered to na

DarqueKnight

Deleted - duplicate post.

DarqueKnight

Deleted - duplicate post.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

First you said this:



Then, when I pointed out that you misunderstood and my analogy could not be used for your cause, you said this:



So, "resorting" to analogies is a "welcome point" when you think it agrees with you, but it's a bad thing when it disagrees with you. Seems like sour grapes to me.

I'll just stick to answering your response where it fits into the over all conversation about Ethernet and Packetized data

It was a welcome point because it proved you have zero idea what you are talking about.

As soon as I took your poorly thought out analog and pointed out to your chagrin that the customer driving the car didn't know two ships showed up 4 hours apart you then SWITCH analogies to baking cakes of all things.

Speaking of baking: You can't have your cake and eat it too.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You think that digitizing a wideband multi-frequency signal no longer makes it a wideband multi-frequency signal. The digitized form is still wideband and multi-frequency, it is just converted to discrete components.

I think as far as Ethernet is concerned it's data. It will become Wideband and multi-frequency when the computer gets it. The computer reconstructs it.

Let me know when I can come to your place with a Server/Client/Switch. I have $1600 says you can't tell 13/15 times which direction the arrows are facing on the Audioquest Vodka 1.5 meter cable if you aren't staring at it.

Put up or shut up about it already.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Put up or shut up about it already.

Your Internet tough guy routine is very amusing.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It was a welcome point because it proved you have zero idea what you are talking about.

You didn't say that I proved that I didn't know what I was talking about. You said my analogy was welcome because it supported your point:

Habanero Monk wrote: »

DK's welcome point about transporting car parts via ship makes my point:

You have two different ships show up 4 hours apart, they could have even come by different routes. They all get parts offloaded next day, cars assembled, trucked to show room.

The consumer purchasing the car is none the wiser for knowing that the parts came by two different routes and 4 hours apart.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

As soon as I took your poorly thought out analog and pointed out to your chagrin that the customer driving the car didn't know two ships showed up 4 hours apart you then SWITCH analogies to baking cakes of all things.

I was definitely not chagrined. I was amused. My analogy had nothing to do with what you said. It seems that you were the one who was disappointed when I pointed out your error in understanding.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I think as far as Ethernet is concerned it's data. It will become Wideband and multi-frequency when the computer gets it. The computer reconstructs it.

You think, but you don't know. You still have much to learn. The wideband and multi-frequency aspects of the signal must be preserved in digital form in order for the D/A converter to accurately construct analog signals.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Let me know when I can come to your place with a Server/Client/Switch. I have $1600 says you can't tell 13/15 times which direction the arrows are facing on the Audioquest Vodka 1.5 meter cable if you aren't staring at it.

Well, I'm not one of the people claiming to be able to hear differences in Ethernet cables. I don't have a network audio rig, therefore I am not sure why you think administering such a test to me would be of general interest. I did point you to others who claim to be able to hear differences in Ethernet cables and I would expect you to take your challenge to them.

Although I am not currently interested I computer audio, I expect that it is something I will be of interest to me in the near future. Hence, my interest in the topic. It would actually be to my economic benefit if I cannot hear differences in Ethernet cables.

In this thread, I posted a link to an exercise that demonstrated that I could not hear or see a difference in HDMI cables. I also said I have never heard a difference in any of the digital coax or optical cables I have used. However, I realize that my failure to perceive differences in digital cable performance does not mean that others cannot.

For the third time, can you provide a citation to the article where the AQ or MIT sales reps could not pick out their own company's cables in a blind test?

No comment on your hero's claim to have invented something that already existed and his insistence on using a test for stereo that is scientifically invalid?

villian

Yawn

ken brydson

villian wrote: »

Yawn

Why are you even here? Have you contributed anything? All I've see is you jumping on the cable debates. Move along....

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Ok, how do I know you don't suck at terminating data cable? Was the cable used for Ethernet data or other?

It was used for both "Ethernet data" and DSD "data".

As I said, if "you guys" listen as well as you read, it's no wonder you cannot hear differences in cables (not withstanding if your system is mid to low resolution).

As pointed out in the orignial post (from page 2) and the post you quoted, the exact same cable was used to transmit computer "data" from from a router to a computer, transmitting images and colors. It was also used to transmit a DSD signal from an RJ45 jack installed in my Denon DVD-1920 modified player to my self built DAC. The connections and cabling in both the DSD transport and DAC function(ed) perfectly. the only change was the Ethernet cable. In the computer router transmitting computer "data" it functioned semmingly "unaffected". When used from the DSD transport to the DAC, transmitting a DSD "data" signal, the Ethernet cable failed to transmit the "data".

This is proof positive that what is being sent through an ethernet cable is as important as the cable itself and that not all "data" is the same.

headrott

villian wrote: »

Your entire post is made on the assumption of error (And a lot of it at that). Can you please explain to me how many digital signal errors are generally observed in a Cat6 cable meeting spec?

I think that what you'll find is the error rate is far less than anything that can cause a discernible difference in performance. It would take an insane amount of error to justify directional digital cables. This whole notion of "certain signals are easier for cables to transport than others" is a bunch of hogwash. A cable doesn't care about strain. It either transports the signal or it doesn't. Sure, hundreds of variables impact that ability to transport a data signal, but, none make it "Easier" or "Harder" for that cable to transport said signal. It either does or it doesn't. With the same error rate regardless.

Please point out how my post is in error, specifically.

Have you seen high powered photographic pictures of the crystal grain structure of TPC (Tough Pitch Copper) verses PCOCC (Pure Copper Ohno Continuous Cast)? The difference in grain structure is astounding.

Also, a cross section of PCOCC (top) and TPC (bottom)

As you can see, due to the structure of the PCOCC, the "data signal" has much less resistance (interference) due to a purer copper cable. This, in turn leads to less induced error in the "data" signal because the signal moves more effectively through the PCOCC cable. With less induced error inthe "data" signal, you gain higer fidelity audio. For your level of understanding, the picture below may make it more straightforward to you.

You may think that the error rate is lower than what humans can hear, but is this because you cannot detect it with a measuring device (meter, etc.)? That is a faulty assumption.

Also, the idea of one "data" signal being easier to transport is absolutely fact. AGAIN, I will refer you to my post on page 2 regarding using the same ethernet cable transporting a computer "data" signal and a DSD "data" signal transported from my modified "DSD transport" to my DAC via the same ethernet cable. This clearly shows how one "data" signal (computer producing images and colors) and another (DSD producing high resolution audio) can make a difference in the success (or failure) of the "data" signal transportation. A cable obviously does cair about "strain".

You are absolutely 100% wrong about the idea of a cable "either transports a signal or it doesn't" and you are using faulty logic. Error is introduced to an electric signal in wiring regardless of whether it's digital or analog. the amount of error is dependent on many many things, but part of the error comes from the cable (see above for further explanation in case you didn't get it the first time) So, would you like to re-think this "hogwash" thought?

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

It was used for both "Ethernet data" and DSD "data".

As I said, if "you guys" listen as well as you read, it's no wonder you cannot hear differences in cables (not withstanding if your system is mid to low resolution).

As pointed out in the orignial post (from page 2) and the post you quoted, the exact same cable was used to transmit computer "data" from from a router to a computer, transmitting images and colors. It was also used to transmit a DSD signal from an RJ45 jack installed in my Denon DVD-1920 modified player to my self built DAC. The connections and cabling in both the DSD transport and DAC function(ed) perfectly. the only change was the Ethernet cable. In the computer router transmitting computer "data" it functioned semmingly "unaffected". When used from the DSD transport to the DAC, transmitting a DSD "data" signal, the Ethernet cable failed to transmit the "data".

This is proof positive that what is being sent through an ethernet cable is as important as the cable itself and that not all "data" is the same.

You listen about as well as you read also. I've been talking solely about Ethernet. Not DSD.

It's entirely possible that they cable you made is sub optimal but due to the nature of TCP and other protocols higher in the OSI stack that it actually passed data on an Ethernet network and you where blissfully unaware. That when you used it for DSD that it's not designed to do the same thing as a mechanism like TCP and failed.

This possibility didn't cross your mind? I'm not interested in your use for DSD transport. It isn't what we are discussing.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Please point out how my post is in error, specifically.

Have you seen high powered photographic pictures of the crystal grain structure of TPC (Tough Pitch Copper) verses PCOCC (Pure Copper Ohno Continuous Cast)? The difference in grain structure is astounding.

Also, a cross section of PCOCC (top) and TPC (bottom)

As you can see, due to the structure of the PCOCC, the "data signal" has much less resistance (interference) due to a purer copper cable. This, in turn leads to less induced error in the "data" signal because the signal moves more effectively through the PCOCC cable. With less induced error inthe "data" signal, you gain higer fidelity audio. For your level of understanding, the picture below may make it more straightforward to you.

You may think that the error rate is lower than what humans can hear, but is this because you cannot detect it with a measuring device (meter, etc.)? That is a faulty assumption.

So are the copper PCB traces, solder joints, leads on the IC package all PCOCC in your system?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So are the copper PCB traces, solder joints, leads on the IC package all PCOCC in your system?

This ranks right up there with the "premium power cords with high grade copper (or silver) make no sense because the power travels through miles and miles of "ordinary" copper and the wiring in the wall is ordinary copper". It is the same nonsense as saying water filters are useless because the water travels trough miles and miles of ordinary pipe and the pipe in the walls is ordinary pipe. Filtering power cords can reject environmental noise and can reduce noise in the power signal.

If you are performance oriented, you do what you can to preserve signal integrity once the signal leaves a component. Everything the signal passes through changes it in some way. Any cable is going to affect the signal in some detrimental way. That detriment may or may not be audibly or visibly perceptible. It makes sense to be aware that environmental noise and the noise characteristics of a cable might have some perceptible effect on signal integrity. With that in mind, evaluating the performance of different cable options is a good idea.

We usually don't have any control over the type of copper and grade of solder used in our audio and video components. However, if we are performance oriented, that does not mean we should not take measures to preserve signal integrity between components by selecting cables that do the least amount of harm.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This ranks right up there with the "premium power cords with high grade copper (or silver) make no sense because the power travels through miles and miles of "ordinary" copper and the wiring in the wall is ordinary copper". It is the same nonsense as saying water filters are useless because the water travels trough miles and miles of ordinary pipe and the pipe in the walls is ordinary pipe. Filtering power cords can reject environmental noise and can reduce noise in the power signal.

If you are performance oriented, you do what you can to preserve signal integrity once the signal leaves a component. Everything the signal passes through changes it in some way. Any cable is going to affect the signal in some detrimental way. That detriment may or may not be audibly or visibly perceptible. It makes sense to be aware that environmental noise and the noise characteristics of a cable might have some perceptible effect on signal integrity. With that in mind, evaluating the performance of different cable options is a good idea.

We usually don't have any control over the type of copper and grade of solder used in our audio and video components. However, if we are performance oriented, that does not mean we should not take measures to preserve signal integrity between components by selecting cables that do the least amount of harm.

That certainly brings the question of Wireless and WISA into the spot light.

For the costs of some of the power cables I've seen I would rather get a fully balanced -60 to +60 power.

http://www.furmansound.com/product.php?div=01&id=P-2400IT

villian

headrott wrote: »

As pointed out in the orignial post (from page 2) and the post you quoted, the exact same cable was used to transmit computer "data" from from a router to a computer, transmitting images and colors.

Technically the data transmitted contained no images or colors. But, that's splitting hairs.

headrott wrote: »

It was also used to transmit a DSD signal from an RJ45 jack installed in my Denon DVD-1920 modified player to my self built DAC. The connections and cabling in both the DSD transport and DAC function(ed) perfectly. the only change was the Ethernet cable. In the computer router transmitting computer "data" it functioned semmingly "unaffected". When used from the DSD transport to the DAC, transmitting a DSD "data" signal, the Ethernet cable failed to transmit the "data".

What makes you think that NO data was being sent? Have you verified this? Who's to say that the data wasn't transmitted, but that you self built DAC couldn't properly decode the data stream for whatever reason? Consumer Electronics go through countless hours of testing just to uncover things like that.

headrott wrote: »

This is proof positive that what is being sent through an ethernet cable is as important as the cable itself and that not all "data" is the same.

Wrong again. All data is the same when it passes through an ethernet cable. The only difference is the amount of data.

villian

headrott wrote: »

Please point out how my post is in error, specifically.

Have you seen high powered photographic pictures of the crystal grain structure of TPC (Tough Pitch Copper) verses PCOCC (Pure Copper Ohno Continuous Cast)? The difference in grain structure is astounding.

Also, a cross section of PCOCC (top) and TPC (bottom)

As you can see, due to the structure of the PCOCC, the "data signal" has much less resistance (interference) due to a purer copper cable. This, in turn leads to less induced error in the "data" signal because the signal moves more effectively through the PCOCC cable. With less induced error inthe "data" signal, you gain higer fidelity audio. For your level of understanding, the picture below may make it more straightforward to you.

You may think that the error rate is lower than what humans can hear, but is this because you cannot detect it with a measuring device (meter, etc.)? That is a faulty assumption.

Also, the idea of one "data" signal being easier to transport is absolutely fact. AGAIN, I will refer you to my post on page 2 regarding using the same ethernet cable transporting a computer "data" signal and a DSD "data" signal transported from my modified "DSD transport" to my DAC via the same ethernet cable. This clearly shows how one "data" signal (computer producing images and colors) and another (DSD producing high resolution audio) can make a difference in the success (or failure) of the "data" signal transportation. A cable obviously does cair about "strain".

You are absolutely 100% wrong about the idea of a cable "either transports a signal or it doesn't" and you are using faulty logic. Error is introduced to an electric signal in wiring regardless of whether it's digital or analog. the amount of error is dependent on many many things, but part of the error comes from the cable (see above for further explanation in case you didn't get it the first time) So, would you like to re-think this "hogwash" thought?

I never said that YOUR post was in error, I was talking about the error rate of a digital signal being transmitted and how everyone seems to think that it's a super high error percentage, when in reality its super low. Therefore cables meant to lower the error rate are themselves erroneous.

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This ranks right up there with the "premium power cords with high grade copper (or silver) make no sense because the power travels through miles and miles of "ordinary" copper and the wiring in the wall is ordinary copper". It is the same nonsense as saying water filters are useless because the water travels trough miles and miles of ordinary pipe and the pipe in the walls is ordinary pipe.

Nonsense? Technically most consumer "Water Filters" are useless when it comes to filtration or treatment of water. They simply make water more palatable (Changing the taste and odor). They do nothing to filter or treat the water, and can in fact cause lower quality water to be output than what was input. The things they do remove, while sounding great on paper (Heavy metals, calcium, etc) are not really all that inclusive considering the big picture, and are often times desired. Water stripped of all outside content is unhealthy, and impossible to obtain in a home environment. That is unless you happen to have a home RO rig, which I very much doubt is the case for 99% of Americans.


Amazing what you find when you look beyond the advertising stickers..Isn't it?

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

Nonsense? Technically most consumer "Water Filters" are useless when it comes to filtration or treatment of water. They simply make water more palatable (Changing the taste and odor). They do nothing to filter or treat the water, and can in fact cause lower quality water to be output than what was input. The things they do remove, while sounding great on paper (Heavy metals, calcium, etc) are not really all that inclusive considering the big picture, and are often times desired. Water stripped of all outside content is unhealthy, and impossible to obtain in a home environment. That is unless you happen to have a home RO rig, which I very much doubt is the case for 99% of Americans.


Amazing what you find when you look beyond the advertising stickers..Isn't it?

No, what is amazing is the fact that water filters can change the taste and odor of the water without actually... filtering anything.
I am sure you will spout off a lengthy explanation of how that is accomplished. Magic pebbles maybe?

And by heavy metals, do you mean lead and mercury?

Sorry, but I can still see the post where you tell me to take my trolling elsewhere. Hmm.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

That certainly brings the question of Wireless and WISA into the spot light.

Going wireless only trades one set of problems for another. There is still environmental electrical noise to contend with and the noise characteristics of the transmitters and receivers.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

For the costs of some of the power cables I've seen I would rather get a fully balanced -60 to +60 power.

http://www.furmansound.com/product.php?div=01&id=P-2400IT

Any reasonable person understands that power cords are just one part of a comprehensive system of power quality management that should consist of high quality power cords, dedicated AC circuits, active and passive power filters, and AC regenerators. No one with any sense will say that an expensive power cord should be used in place of a good power conditioner, power filter, or AC regenerator.

Given a choice between a dedicated AC circuit or a power cord of equal price, the dedicated circuit will usually provide the most benefit.

villian wrote: »

Nonsense? Technically most consumer "Water Filters" are useless when it comes to filtration or treatment of water.

Then we must hope that those interested in improving their water quality will choose a filter not included in your "most" category.

villian wrote: »

Amazing what you find when you look beyond the advertising stickers..Isn't it?

It is. That is why I am a huge advocate of doing your own research and investigation rather than just relying on what you read and copy and paste from the Internet.