On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:49:21 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:48 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



I have no reason to believe he is not a man of his word. If you would
like to do this thing independently of his challenge, of course, I am
happy to go along with it.

We *were* supposed to do this anyways, so yes, his "challange" can be
included, if he does not squi..err.. find your protocol inadequate that
is...

I transfer one of my questions above to this thread, might be wise for
you to consider this possibility beforehand:

"The speaker cables I use are just individual, thin strands of
silver/copper wire shielded with teflon coating and braided in a special
construction, no boxes or resistors anywhere. Your lamp cord is lamp
cord. So if my cables somehow produce enough a wider freq resp variation
as compraed to your lamcord (0.1) then does that mean that the test we
have agreed upon on the thread below can't be done? "


I have dealt with this in the other thread.

I am presuming that you will bring whatever device necessary to measure
the cables, and the lamp cord of your choice of course...


I am not offering any money.

Ok.


And my suggestion of your paying my fare was not to be taken
seriously.

Ok. I will buy you a beer or two though, as in basic hospitality.



I would also like to gather a few more responses to refine my proposed
protocol - I have already seen a few problems with it that I will deal
with and re-post the page.

Ok. When you so confirm, I will send you a personal message for the
contact details when you are in these parts of the woods. Welcome!

Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com