[Leica] XP-2 -> Audio Cable

[Douglas Barry]

Agreed, Howard, those unicorn gallstones, especially the ones made by the 
virgins from Raqqa are very overrated. All that money spent, and they 
probably want to play rubbish too...

Douglas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Howard Ritter" <hlritter at bex.net>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] XP-2


> Audiophools philes addicted to equipment porn. Hardly better than some 
> Leicaphools philes. No one on this list, of course!
>
> Has anyone ever seen even an attempt at an engineering justification of 
> these baubles that explains what $2000 (or even $0.02) benefit comes from 
> making the last 2m of the AC power chain out of sintered unicorn 
> gallstones while leaving the hundreds of miles of exposed, weathered 
> lines, coming thru multiple substations and transformers, interconnected 
> to all manner of noisy users, from the power plant to the mains socket 
> untouched? Or a blinded A/B test between one of these and the factory 
> cord?
>
> —howard
>
>
>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> $500 doesn't buy much of a power cord :).
>> http://www.essentialsound.com/essence-power-cord/
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On 11/25/2015 1:22 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
>>> No you're missing out on the meaningless bullshit. It's like guys that 
>>> think their stereo sounds better with a $500 power cord from the amp to 
>>> the wall, but are clueless about the wires from the wall to the breaker 
>>> box to the street. It's like the monks arguing over the number of angels 
>>> on the head of a pin. I was just thinking, as I read the business about 
>>> Samsung exiting the camera business how things have changed. I think 
>>> that today you can get results from FF/APS/MFT that are more than good 
>>> enough for anyone.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Dante Stella
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:48 PM
>>> To: Leica Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] XP-2
>>>
>>> Does a 1/3 stop even make a difference? Or is 320 a lucky number that 
>>> people remember from TXP120? Serious question.
>>>
>>> I see references everywhere to rating 400 film of various types at 320, 
>>> and it seems a bit strange because few film cameras are accurate and 
>>> consistent enough to predict a blanket rule with an almost insignificant 
>>> amount of overexposure. Virtually anything with a leaf shutter is 
>>> already overexposing by at least that much -- meaning that "320" really 
>>> means 250, and 2/3 stop is much more noticeable than 1/3. And with all 
>>> mechanical shutters, each speed can have a different error in a 
>>> different direction. The other thing is that C-41 processing, at least 
>>> commercial processing, is not that consistent either.
>>>
>>> And having put a densitometer to silver negatives exposed at one-third 
>>> stop increments with very accurate electronic shutters, it does not tend 
>>> to drag meaningful detail out of the toe. And it makes zero difference 
>>> to tones on a straight-line film like TMY. Maybe things are different 
>>> with XP2, but even eyeballing its curve, it seems doubtful that (an 
>>> actual) 1/3 stop would do very much.
>>>
>>> Or maybe I'm missing the magic here? I take the suggestion seriously 
>>> coming from you, but it still seems slightly superstitious.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Dante
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Overexposure lowers grain but also lowers contrast.  I used 320 most. 
>>>> You
>>>> can use the typical negative film approach -- expose for the shadows 
>>>> and
>>>> let the highlights go where they may.  It's hard to burn them out with 
>>>> that
>>>> film.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Bryk Oliver <oliverbryk at comcast.net> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How should I rate XP-2 if none of the images will be printed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any advice based on experience,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information