DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?
"She also suggested I ask you for a plain english explanation of your point " "And don’t V/Q mismatches occur every time we move and that does affect gas exchange does it not.?" Well, the answer was the first paragraph. It was very simple and in plain English. However, to simplify it further to the point of bordering with insufficient explanation......yes they do, but it does not matter in a normal subject. |
Back to actual cables.. I have noticed that when I used a VAC Standard preamp as a tube buffer, I could easily hear the differences between Cardas Parsec, and Kimber KS1016 with changing just one IC pair. However when I switched to an Audible Illusions 3A as the tube buffer I can no longer hear ANY difference between the two IC when switching. However I have also been doing other things to the system. The largest change I can hear is adding two Furutech GTX gold Duplex. My system was a little lean prior, and now is better balanced and ’warmer’ (so the difference in the cable sound may have been more easily heard in the lean condition.) The ’lean; mainly do it my going for clarity as the primary goal for several years. Having gotten ther,e now I can ease off a bit and keep most of the clarity but trade off a little for a warm balance. All this is happening with just powercords and AC duplex. The toys I have been fiddling with of late. |
@glupson Actually it wasn’t a waste....got to learn something....ranted a little ( not often you get to use gobbledygook eh ).....and as a bonus at the end had a giggle or two with Geoff.... And as long as I have your undivided attention there is one more thing. When I was wandering through the wilds of the interwebs ran into something that relates to this here thing you posted earlier.... You have to develop/learn the skill of painting. Well it kinda depends eh. Like whether you are referring to painters-of-note, bored suburban house wife folk, bog standard hack painters, or house painters. Methinks youse is referring to painters-of-note and not the rest of the crowd that plays around with paint brushes and other artsy stuff. So the thingee that separates the wheat from the chaff in this particular case is talent, that bit that produces art, and not just paint slapped on a surface, and when really good, transcendent art. So here is something on talent.... Every person possesses certain skills and talent, that makes us different from others. We often use the terms talent and skill interchangeably, without knowing the fact that these are different from one another. While talent is an inborn ability or natural aptitude of a person which is often hidden and needs recognition .... Key Differences Between Talent and Skill So it seems what you were talking about were basically house painters while you seemed to have been inferring painters-of-note.There is a difference, and yes, one can indeed be taught. As for the rest it gets most much more complisticated. Just sayin eh. And oh, asked head office about West, and she asked if you want a book report, maybe some in camera proof, or a signed affidavit...then there was something that I suspect is not entirely fit for this forum ( it had something to do with going forth and multiplying or something, though I can’t for the world of me figure out what math has to do with this )....it seems sometimes she just doesn’t have as well a rounded sense of humour as I do, or the same deep well of patience ( read, we are both in the dog house for some reason ). |
taras22, I changed my mind and would now agree it was not a complete waste of time. I, accidentally, found an interesting lecture by that same Dr. West about respiration at the limit. You may not be interested in it, but your partner may. There are some results from actual respiratory measurements on Mount Everest. It is very informative and thought-provoking. On the other hand, she may be familiar with that already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRN124iuqZ8&list=PLE69608EC343F5691&index=14 I also googled "gobbledygook", the word I had never encountered before. The first definition that shows up (I did not dig deeper, I admit) puts it as "excessive use of abstruse technical terms". I read my earlier post again and found maybe three, let’s say four, terms that are not simple English words and I used them sparingly (each one once, except V/Q maybe twice). V/Q, pCO2, FiO2, brainstem. Although they are not your everyday grocery store language, they are as basic and well-known in anything that even remotely discusses breathing. They are far from being complicated or abstruse, much less used excessively. I have a hard time accepting that anyone familiar with these issues finds them too technical. Not to clog this thread, but is there a way your partner could point out parts in that earlier post that she found incorrect or objectionable? I would really appreciate it as I would like to improve my understanding of things and would surely enjoy finding out I was wrong and learning how. I am not sure how to do it outside of this thread, though. As far as painting goes, I was not thinking deep enough to dissect painters into categories, but it does seem reasonable. In my mind it was not some famous painter, but pretty much your average neighbor, so to say. My point was that for painting you do need to put an effort into learning, even if it is just how to hold the brush, and it will altogether require a lots of practice and muscle coordination (throwing-paint on-the-canvas-from-the-distance kind of paintings do not qualify for this purpose) while hearing is inborn. Now, I am not sure I can fully agree with those differences between hearing and listening, but I can see room for a reasonable debate there. |
taras22, I am not sure what affidavit she was talking about, but it seems that it makes two of us. When it comes to math, there are lots of equations and calculations that could be involved, should one wanted to dig deeper into pressures and physiology, but that does become too technical and I never considered mentioning it. It helps understanding, but it gets complicated, too. Definitely does not end up in "plain English". As I said, that gobbledygook was, indeed, simplified to extremes and in as plain of English as it could ever get. Now, when I think about it, maybe it was too simple for her usual approach. |
