Re: Tice clock

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:47:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority <nowhere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:slrng1v7cd.dmk.aznomad.3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> wrote:
>>>If not, are they all worthless?
>>
>> Oh no.  They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
>> dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
>> quality like that of a high school student science fair project.
>>
>> I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
>> clock really worked.

>I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never 
>reviewed it.

>Bob Morein
>(310) 237-6511 


More stereophile rubbish:
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/990meridian/

....
> I helped things along with a few tweaks. First, I substituted a
better-quality
> optical cable (from Onkyo) for the very thin optical cable supplied with
my
> Philips CD60. The thin optical cable was strangling the sound! I also
> substituted a Music & Sound power cord for the one which came standard
with the
> unit\u2014a further improvement. And I changed my interconnects from
Cardas
> Quadlink to Purist Audio Designs\u2014a very substantial improvement,
> particularly in detail and overall resolution.

Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying
checksums
all in an effort to sound fuller.