New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sml1226

So I can't use the terrifying old semi-realistic ponies from the old series? Why not just call it My Little March. Still has a M in it that way I can use this scary looking thing
I'm looking for something new now that my plans to eventually snag a set of orthos has fallen through. I definitely want a new set of open cans if I'm getting something full sized. I'm looking for some mids similar to what Grado gave me, not necessarily the same mids tonally, just somewhat forward like in the Grados. I'm a bit of a treblehead, so treble is good. I don't need a supertweeter on the side of my head, but what's a little too much for some shouldn't be too bad...
Two days from being exactly a year ago now. Original post was 8/4/11I've seen plenty of clear tubing. I've never seen it in a material I would want to use, but it's not hard to find clear tubing. As we seem to agree now, what people generically call Techflex, PET expandable tubing, is noisy, and the easy way to find clear tubing it to get PET tubing. If you want multifilament nylon, good luck, I have yet to see that in clear.
472. None of us can count very well (now we have 2 468s and no 471... yay!)
I didn't mean to word that in a way that made it sound like something analytical had less detail or any specific sound signature. I meant that you can be analytical without being flat across your FR, and you can be flat without having any detail or being analytical at all. Frequency response and detail retrieval do not have any real correlation was my point.
Analytic does not necessarily equal flat response. You could have something ruler flat that has so little detail you couldn't pull a gunshot out during a flute solo it's so messy. On the other hand, a lot of very "analytic" headphones/speakers simply have monster treble making the high end details stand out because they're boosted so heavily. That's not to say you can't have both, but they are not one in the same thing. Regardless of how it comes out, detailed, muddy,...
There's two Os in there
Well based on that, it is microphonic then. The electrical impulse (the noise) is in the ear itself at the cochlea, the mechanical impulse is in the cable which triggers the electrical response. The definition I found right before that was not for the cochlea, it was for microphonics in electronics, which did alter electrical signals. This debate can go through every possible approach to where the microphonics are occurring and what is being altered as the definitions I've...
Merriam-Webster simply defines microphonics as "noises in a loudspeaker caused by mechanical shock or vibration of the electronic components"While it does not fit the definition of a "microphone" or "microphonic" as per Oxford or Merriam-Webster definitions, which do cite electrical responses directly, it is essentially the same thing in a mechanical sense instead. Since I am unaware of an alternate way of saying it (and I assume you do not have any better way of saying...
Epoxy, wooden dowels, metal tubing, heatshrink, amber, stones, etc. Anything can be used there if you like the way it looks.
New Posts  All Forums: