Hahaha ahhhh audiophiles... can sell them anything.... no need for real physics, just tell them that this device will make things sound better, back it up with a BS statment that doesn't apply, and charge them 100 bux.
On 9/3/07, Jeff DePolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One can see there becomes a point where the coax will not > > look like coax at low frequencies or atleast have a > > characteristic impedance of something other than it normal value. > > Most of this is true (although I don't know what you mean by "coax will > not > look like coax"), and I already acknowledged in a previous post that at > sufficiently low frequencies and sufficiently short cable lengths (in > terms > of a fraction of a wavelength) that you may measure effects that seem to > conflict with what you would expect to happen at higher frequencies and > longer cable lengths. That's not what we're arguing. Or at least that's > not what I'm arguing. > > I specifically was addressing your statement that all coax has a > low-frequency cutoff, which it does NOT. Will a transmission line behave > identically at all frequencies? Of course not, that's not new news, there > are many things that affect a cable's behavior as frequency is varied. > > To put this to bed once and for all, can we at least agree that coax does > not have a low-frequency cutoff? I'm sure there will be many audiophiles > that will be happy to hear that their gold-plated oxygen-free litz-wire > triple-shielded phono cables that they paid $100 for will continue to work > into the subaudible range if we can just acknowledge this fact and move > on. > > --- Jeff > > >
