Get posting Phatman! We want to see at least 100 posts by midnight - and none of this 'I agree' and ':)' malarky.
:lol:
Printable View
Get posting Phatman! We want to see at least 100 posts by midnight - and none of this 'I agree' and ':)' malarky.
:lol:
You mean a post full of random numbers wouldn't count?
... I quite a agree. That sort of behaviour is strictly for Mods and Admin only :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filterlab
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwoods
:)
:lol: ;)
That's one more post to add to the collection. ;)
I'm not a mod so I must say something like
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706 79821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081 28481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381 96442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190 91456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412 73724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364 36789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160 94330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185 48074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949 12983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217 98609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051 32000568127145263560827785771342757789609173637178 72146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892 35420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099 60518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318 59502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118 81710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473 03598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957 78185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019
Good shout Brian, Pi to how many places?
:lol:
It's worth the extra post if it was typed from memory!
PS. You promised us a random number. That was the least random number ever :ner:
True on both points Nick,
Brian? :)
1000Quote:
Originally Posted by Filterlab
No, not from memory. From Google.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filterlab
You blew it Brian! You could've lied and would forever more been remembered as the man who knew pi to 1000 places off the top of his head! Ah well ;) :lol:
Can't lie. I'm a clergyman. Haven't you Googled my screen name?
(And no one would have believed me.)
3.142 is as far a my memory takes me (O, those wretched log tables!)
1.414 for sqrt 2
2.71 for e
But hey, that's not bad: I have done no Physics or Electronics Theory since 1970.
Just seen your PS - PI is an irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechwoods
I think if you start at a random point in PI's decimal places, the digits will follow in random order - or at least as good as most other means of generating a random series.
But I haven't done any Maths since 1970 either.
Was that a "Yah Boo Sucks"?
Well, if I knew what one of those was.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Labarum
:lol:
I always remember Pi as 3.1417, can never remember further though, and that's not even correct anyway! :lol:
At grammar school in Derby (up to A-levels in 1969), we were always told that Pi was 22/7. When I mentioned this to a Maths teacher here in Spain she was most impressed, saying that was the only true answer for a value of Pi. Bloody decimals.
22/7 is an approximation. PI is an irrational. It cannot be expressed as the quotient of two integers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/numb/pi-irr.html
And it's also not correct (22/7), if 22/7 is expressed as a decimal it is in fact 3.1428. Pi is stated as being 3.14159 and not 3.1417 as I thought, even rounding up would make it 3.1416 so I'm well out. I do know however that Pi comes from the latin for perimeter which is written as: περίμετροςQuote:
Originally Posted by Labarum
Man, this is what I call thread drift!
Where are you getting your numbers?
3.14159265358979323846 . . .
3.142 to 4 significant figures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filterlab
Excuse me if I'm incorrect, but do those numbers not start with the same digits? :confused: Can anyone else spot the similarity or do we have a case of interpretation preceeding reactive recognition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Labarum
Sorry, too many numbers and far to many words for my little brain:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filterlab
3.1417 was the number my eye fixed on!Quote:
And it's also not correct (22/7), if 22/7 is expressed as a decimal it is in fact 3.1428. Pi is stated as being 3.14159 and not 3.1417 as I thought, even rounding up would make it 3.1416 so I'm well out.
Ahh, I see mate. Yep, I'm definitely wrong with that number, it's mathematically miles out so to speak. :lol:
:)
Shouldn't we getting back to Stan's DAC?
But you are the Administer, Rob.
That has my preference too. :confused:
Thanks Brian :doh: it was a perhaps ill-informed 'ner ner n ner ner' ;) While not wanting to stoke the fires of thread drift any further by trotting further inwards on the thin-ice of my mathematical understanding, Pi itself isn't random, it's a fixed number sequence. I think that was what I was getting at :scratch: Interesting discussion chaps! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Labarum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labarum
Good call folks, let's leave Pi for teatime. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fi-Wi
Here is a question I put which remains unanswered:
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive View Post
Not all USB inputs or converters are created equal . . . Can you say anything about what you done
Labarum:
Yes Stan,
and with reference to Kernel Streaming, ASIO, Exclusive Mode, WASAPI, Windows Mixer.
Getting a bit perfect stream out of a Windows PC is a black art which is one of the reasons why I took the Squeezebox route.
So Stan, what can you tell us about the USB implementation.
---
Or what can anyone else say on the matter?
Stan, you are the master! Earl Klugh sounds like a dream! what separation what guitar work................ OMG, it has caused tears in my eyes & shivers down my spine. A Triumph mate AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
I think he likes it!
I think he does - Since i had time to find my toslink I have been playing all my mp3's flac's apple lossless, files from my iMac thru this wonderful TC 7520 out thru one of Howard Popek's made up cables, made hot by iTube 182, audioquest blue to an old pair of TDL2 trans lne speakers!! everything i threw at it was played so much better with definition, separation & loads of "feeling" Quoting James Brown "I feel good" i thought when i paid the pennies , am i wasting money........ No I haven't ..... I am listening thru the ears of a 16yr old teenager again with Jimi Hendrix "Are you Experienced " playing as I've never heard before.
Thank you Stan for bringing music back to me again & thanks to this forum for introducing the Beresford DAC 7520:gig:
I thought when I was designing the TC-7520, am I wasting my time? would people risk spending nearly £200 on a DAC from my stable after getting accustomed to the low price of the TC-7520? Would I be able to further underline my claims that my design can make even wireless files and mp3 sound far better than any other DAC out there? Could I come up with a USB circuit that could rival even the most expensive USB DAC in terms of musicality? Was it possible to develop a heaphone circuit that could hold its own against the best stand alone headphone amps? And all that for under £200???Quote:
Originally Posted by phatman
Stan
And I think you were aiming for considerably less that £200, but with the falling pound, and importation of component costs . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensimilia
That's pretty well my feelings towards the DAC too - it's absolutely stunning! Full review to follow once I'm back from my holiday (currently posting via my iPhone. ;)).Quote:
Originally Posted by phatman
Excellent work Stan - you are the man!
Did we miss the review then? :)
Marco.
Nope, not even close to running the DAC in yet!
Sounded great at the show, particularly when it 'moved house' onto the QS Ref stand :)
Marco.
Come on, stop slacking:lolsign:
Leo likes getting his whip out, I've heard ;)
Marco.