fo.q tape
- Thread starter MarkieW
- Start date
a.palfreyman
pfm Member
Yep, they use Lemos at work in the lab to wire transducers back to monitoring gear on trains that are being tested. Very reliable...
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
eevo1969
pfm Member
It’s getting there…Where's the fun in that? Based on your average cable thread I reckon this is good for another 500+ posts...
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I recall a show where Mark Levenson were boasting about how electrically secure their plugs/sockets were by lifting up the heavy amp by an input signal cable. Of course, that was actually the locking collar doing the impressing. Not proof of a perfect ohmic contact. Just the old view that 'pro' gear is defined by being able to pick it up by the leads and swing it into the truck, and it would still work at the next gig. 8-]
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
I vaguely recall seeing ones that were more like £300 each for the plug and socket!
Yeh, they do Burndy style plugs as well, that's the really expensive stuff, genuinely mil-spec, as in used on weapons system.
killie99
pfm Member
Company I used to work for used (didn’t actually have a choice!) Burndy connectors on all the in circuit test fixtures on Genrad and Teradyne test systems 30 years ago , testing resistors/caps/inductors to VERY tight tolerances. These connectors are nothing new but they are super reliable and very robust but not something I’d use in Hifi unless you’re building a ‘money no object’ project.
They are also designed for many insertion/breaks which isn’t something you need in Hifi.
A 99p cheap Chinese connector with a bit of foq tape probably performs better.
They are also designed for many insertion/breaks which isn’t something you need in Hifi.
A 99p cheap Chinese connector with a bit of foq tape probably performs better.
Disagree, what sometimes makes this place uninviting is the increasing amount of unscientific nonsense.
It sometimes makes me want to weep.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
IME, what more often makes this place uninviting is the caustic nature of the responses from some of the people who assert that something is unscientific nonsense.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
I'm not wearing any.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Oh. What is getting in a twist, then?I'm not wearing any.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Just to say that, IIRC, the tape in question here costs around the same as a bottle of whisky. You may argue about the value point, but saying that people *shouldn't* waste their money on these things is equivalent to joining the OT whisky thread to argue that people shouldn't spend their money on whisky, because it's bad for you and because once it's gone, you've nothing to show for it. Frankly, it's nobody else's business what people here spend their money on, especially if the cost is pretty trivial.
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
Page 20 and we are still discussing what is 'scientific'!
To me, it looks as if extremists on both sides are less than courteous, which is a pity, though one side seems to have more people who enjoy sneering and abuse (not discussion) than the other. As a Zappa fan, even I think that there are a few occasions when sneering is irresistible, but it rarely helps discussion.
Some on the 'scientific or objectivist camp here claim (for example) than all speaker cable changes belong with pixie dust and crystal-healing. Many are happy to use ears only when buying speakers, but require a complete and scientifically certain explanation of what is going on before they will even consider why a huge number of people like/ dislike a cable or a rack - and don't get them started on (say) valve amps or horns.
Some make simple assertions that would be very relevant if they were true and fair, but they're not. My favourite example here is the view that Julian Vereker knew and stated that all cables sound the same, and that Naim only started selling upgraded cables after he was gone and the French forced the company to start deliberately ripping off its gullible customers. Really?!
Some will say (correctly) that ears are very fallible and meters are not, and that we know all that we will ever need to know about the acoustics/ hearing. Thus, far from ears 'knowing better', some will argue that whatever your ears tell you is 100% irrelevant - only the measurements matter (at least with some questions) and we are 10% certain that we know 100% of the relevant measurements.
Some make assertions that seem very broad or even universal, without reference to different systems and rooms being relevant.
Some of them raise bits of science or apparent 'common sense', but don't deign to answer queries or scientifically-based counter-arguments, suggesting strongly that getting to The Truth (or even a better consensus) is not their aim, but 'winning' or proving themselves the superior or more rational man may well be. Whom are they trying to convince?
Critically, 'some' does not cover everyone who makes reference to real & relevant scientific facts, or who bemoans implausible half-explanations for questionable effects. A lot of people on both sides and no side have provided comments, data and links here that I have found interesting and/ or useful.
It would be a pity if someone less thick-skinned were put off the thread or the whole forum because one side or the other shouted repeatedly that the other had all proven themselves deaf, daft, duped and/ or dishonest.
To me, it looks as if extremists on both sides are less than courteous, which is a pity, though one side seems to have more people who enjoy sneering and abuse (not discussion) than the other. As a Zappa fan, even I think that there are a few occasions when sneering is irresistible, but it rarely helps discussion.
Some on the 'scientific or objectivist camp here claim (for example) than all speaker cable changes belong with pixie dust and crystal-healing. Many are happy to use ears only when buying speakers, but require a complete and scientifically certain explanation of what is going on before they will even consider why a huge number of people like/ dislike a cable or a rack - and don't get them started on (say) valve amps or horns.
Some make simple assertions that would be very relevant if they were true and fair, but they're not. My favourite example here is the view that Julian Vereker knew and stated that all cables sound the same, and that Naim only started selling upgraded cables after he was gone and the French forced the company to start deliberately ripping off its gullible customers. Really?!
Some will say (correctly) that ears are very fallible and meters are not, and that we know all that we will ever need to know about the acoustics/ hearing. Thus, far from ears 'knowing better', some will argue that whatever your ears tell you is 100% irrelevant - only the measurements matter (at least with some questions) and we are 10% certain that we know 100% of the relevant measurements.
Some make assertions that seem very broad or even universal, without reference to different systems and rooms being relevant.
Some of them raise bits of science or apparent 'common sense', but don't deign to answer queries or scientifically-based counter-arguments, suggesting strongly that getting to The Truth (or even a better consensus) is not their aim, but 'winning' or proving themselves the superior or more rational man may well be. Whom are they trying to convince?
Critically, 'some' does not cover everyone who makes reference to real & relevant scientific facts, or who bemoans implausible half-explanations for questionable effects. A lot of people on both sides and no side have provided comments, data and links here that I have found interesting and/ or useful.
It would be a pity if someone less thick-skinned were put off the thread or the whole forum because one side or the other shouted repeatedly that the other had all proven themselves deaf, daft, duped and/ or dishonest.
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
Of course, anyone sane on either wing of the debate would agree with your gist - as long as we are 100% certain that we are 100% right on what is and isn't woo.