>>zip cord DOES roll off the treble response and it is audible.<<
ROFL. Yeah. Good thing YOU are not stubborn, huh?
>>Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response.<<
You might as well say Zip Cord makes apples come out of your speakers, drop some jargon, mention Nelson Pass, and you'd be just as convincing.
>>Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.<<
More jargon. Zip Cord is either audibly rolled off or it isn't. And it isn't. There's no more debate about that. Anyone who has the facts and still wants to believe this just wants to believe it, no matter what.
It is hilarious that you keep spinning around trying to save face rather than just admit you made a little mistake, went off about a "roll-off" without doing any research, fibbed about what you can hear to try to cover it, and got your tail caught in a crack. Some people would have just said, "wow -- thanks for the correct, I guess I was thinking about something else." Or, "Man -- I guess I must have looked at the frequency response charts before I had my coffee."
Or, something.
You can drop Nelson Pass and as much jargon into the conversation as you want and it won't make the "roll-off" audible, won't give you the super human hearing you'd need to hear it. In fact, dropping irrelevant names is just more evidence that you're spinning.
An honest argument wouldn't need such stuff.
In legal circles, they refer to such behavior as "cognizance of guilt."
I wouldn't go that far, I would just call it throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick.
ROFL. Yeah. Good thing YOU are not stubborn, huh?
>>Not only in amplitude, but also in terms of transient response.<<
You might as well say Zip Cord makes apples come out of your speakers, drop some jargon, mention Nelson Pass, and you'd be just as convincing.
>>Remember, i'm comparing this to a wide bandwidth, low inductance design.<<
More jargon. Zip Cord is either audibly rolled off or it isn't. And it isn't. There's no more debate about that. Anyone who has the facts and still wants to believe this just wants to believe it, no matter what.
It is hilarious that you keep spinning around trying to save face rather than just admit you made a little mistake, went off about a "roll-off" without doing any research, fibbed about what you can hear to try to cover it, and got your tail caught in a crack. Some people would have just said, "wow -- thanks for the correct, I guess I was thinking about something else." Or, "Man -- I guess I must have looked at the frequency response charts before I had my coffee."
Or, something.
You can drop Nelson Pass and as much jargon into the conversation as you want and it won't make the "roll-off" audible, won't give you the super human hearing you'd need to hear it. In fact, dropping irrelevant names is just more evidence that you're spinning.
An honest argument wouldn't need such stuff.
In legal circles, they refer to such behavior as "cognizance of guilt."
I wouldn't go that far, I would just call it throwing stuff at the wall to see what might stick.