> In article <4ebqhi$jkf@slip.net>, nms@slip.net says...
>
> >In article <4eb44s$fbq@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com
> >(Bob Neuman) wrote: (.....)
> >> etc., etc., etc. Whee-ooo!!! And I thought audio was bad! (Yes,
> >> people actually claim that RCA interconnect wires have a "direction",
> >> and should be hooked up only one way around!). (.....)
>
> >This is the wrong forum to introduce audio analogies. (and btw, *some*
> >RCA interconnects *do* have a direction ;-)
> >For example , the interconnect I am using currently incorporates
> >standing wave suppressors along the length of the cable, and the
> >placement of such is determine by which direction the signal is
> >flowing, and the cables will not sound the same if reversed.
> >There also exist some theories about the crystalline structure of the
> >metal having a memory effect, so that the cable itself is not
> >directional but "learns" to be directional by its initial placement.
> >And you thought photography was bad!
>
> Ha, ha, ha! A GOOD one! Had me going there for a moment (Some people
> really do believe this stuff!), but your ;-) gave it away as a joke,
> thank goodness! BTW, it happened again since my first post: one
> person says Leitz lenses are good stopped down, but the edges and
> corners at wider apertures, well.... Another person says that what
> is so good about Leitz lenses is that they have even center-to-corner
> sharpness, even at wide apertures... Hmmm..., seems like the Leitz
> lens lovers should get their stories straight, perhaps - there always
> seems to be so much contradiction from the Leitz folks about why
> their lenses are good, or if not that, then euphemisms about the
> Leitz lens "look". ;-), ;-), ;-).
> Hope This Helps

Wow, wait, this is getting complicated. I wasn't joking about the cables,
but you knew that and you were joking about my seriousness, right?
---Hmmm, this IS getting complicated;-)
I'm not a cable designer, nor do I play one on TV, but I hear very well,
and I hear differences between cable directions in situations when I'm not
even looking for it, like the time I put the cables on backwards and didn't
realize it but heard something "wrong" with the system. It took days to
figure out that the cables were backwards! I tried everything else first,
and only upon unplugging the cables did I realize my faux pas.
---Perceptions of performance are funny things. In photography, at least
---we have the solid photo image to examine, though the conclusions
---about what is seen can vary from viewer to viewer, or be modified
---by comments from another viewer. In audio, the perceptions apply to
---a medium that is hard to pin down and examine, even with the best
---current technology, since it is so complex and ephemeral. (Photo lens
---performance is, I think, more complex an issue than most people think
---[though the problem of quantifying and qualifying it is simpler than
---it is in audio], and simple lpmm tests do not tell enough about lens
---performance, for reasons I will go into if I ever finish that lens
---checking article.....) In audio, it always amazes me how acceptable
---various gross anomolies in performance are (true in photo, also, for
---those willing to accept terrible corner performance, yet get excited
---about 100 lpmm in the center of a lens), yet how important to the
---perception of high quality performance of an audio system can be the
---adjustment of a minor detail in that performance. And, it always amazes
---me how easily the perception of the quality of performance can be
---modified by external influences, like by hearing a few words of
---comment, by changes in background noise, by one's mood shift, etc.
---I have developed an excellent audio memory over the many years of my
---audiomania (similar, I guess, to my memory of lens performances, also
---developed over many years of photomania, which is also pretty good),
---yet I have found that, when I make a minor change in my audio system
---that seems to produce an improvement, it is a good idea to bring in
---someone to help (not to evaluate the change, but to help run a test in
---which they randomly alternate introducing and removing the change
---[without telling me what they have done] while keeping track of my
---response to it - it turns out that my perceptions are often wrong, and
---my [random] responses show that no improvement exists). As to the wire,
---methinks something like that may be at work - try a blind test to see
---if your responses to it are random. (Since audio current does not run
---through the wire [and out the other side], I see no mechanism for the
---value of wire direction - though I have found that impedence questions
---[at connections, in wire, and in hardware design] [plus perception
---alterations] can tell a lot about the differences that we hear in audio
---equipment.) In photography it is a little easier, since we can go back
---to the same image and re-examine it at another time, and with different
---influences, to see if our perception of it is the same - and the
---image remains solid in our hand, not depending so much on our easily
---modified memory, as is the examined material in audio.

You may think this is madness, but I suppose it's no more madness than the
folks that sit at home shooting test charts and getting excited about xx
lpmm!
---Agreed! And, agreed! (Though I engage in both photomania and audiomania
---myself - and I try to keep both of them in perspective, as it appears
---you do too.)
BTW, did you read the anecdotal piece I posted about the 3 systems I shoot
with? The results are interesting, but there are some bits I forgot to add.
Firstly, in ideal circumstances (tripod, even light, MLU where applicable,
K25, outdoors), I couldn't tell the difference between a $2500 Leica lens
and a $400 Nikon zoom. But that was with K25. Moving to TechPan, the
differences became more obvious, noticeably in edge sharpness, but still
not overwhelmingly important, esp if you're not shooting TechPan! But the
results in the low-light situations are what interests me. I think the
results I've been getting indicate an advantage for the rangefinder
focusing. My guess is that I'm just focusing more accurately in low light
than the T4 or Nikon can manage. This explains the higher percentage of
in-focus shots.
---Agreed, again, though in real picture-taking situations (with the
---desired subject focus well off center), good reflex focusing may win
---out (or is THIS the reason for the field curvature in the Leitz speed
---lenses - so that the camera with only center-of-image focus may be
---rotated while maintaining correct focus? [Doesn't do much for flat
---subjects, like near infinity, does it?]). Though, try apples and
---apples: not a prime on one side and a zoom on the other - use like
---focal-length and speed lenses (methinks you will find something
---interesting....).
Anyway, I'm just pratttling on...
Nick
---So am I.
Hope This Helps