Sennheiser PC37X randomly goes bad after disconnecting the cable ?
Greetings, Yesterday I was using my headset like normal with my macbook, just listening to music and on a call with people like usual, and the headset was perfectly fine. The stock wire that came with the headset is extremely long and yesterday it annoyed me very much that it kept getting tangled with itself, so I decided to see if the cable is replaceable. I pulled out the cable from the headset and saw the adapter, and looked online for a replacement. Upon plugging it back in, the audio sounded extremely muffled and washed out. Im not sure what I did wrong to make it mess up like that as I've always taken good care of it, ive had it for about 2 years and its always just been chilling on my desk, but anywho I thought the cable just went bad and ordered a replacement. The replacement came, and the issue is still persistant, so I am not sure what the issue is I've tried multiple different headsets and the issue is not with the port, and I also tried it with my windows laptop and...
Apr 23, 2024
Some online review article: (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/millenia.htm) "The Millenia amplifier uses an unusual output stage configuration that is essentially a Class BD arrangement, which is different than the more widely used Class D topology. The output of the amplifier is generated differentially between the + and – speaker terminals, and is capable of extremely fast response times."
Lifting sections of another's work and appropriating them for you own use, without citing, is plagiarism, even if you reword it to try to disguise this. Simply linking to the article as "further reading" does not constitute citing it unless you also specify that it was a source (in this case, apparently the only source) of the content in your own article.
When you change the wording around to the point that most of it no longer makes any sense, though, I wonder if it's technically still plagiarism if you've destroyed most of the content you were trying to convey? The blurb author is in a bit of a grey-area, then, where it appears he's technically attempted plagiarism, but not all the content he's attempted to co-opt has survived the transition. He tries to present all the points in the original quote, even in the same order(!), but destroys a lot of the meaning with strange technical phrasing, possibly because he doesn't fully understand what he's reading?
Massdrop blurb again: "The device’s preamp works to properly match the impedance to the music source rather than alter the gain and comes with a BurrBrown op, which provides a low current and high slew rate."
Article again: "The preamp stage of the Millenia amplifier is not a gain stage, for its primary purpose is to provide impedance matching with the source component. Impedance mismatches between amplifier input stages and source components is an area where sound quality can be severely compromised, and the solution implemented in the TBI is an effective means to solve this issue. A newly developed Burr Brown op is used in this circuit, and has a low current and high slew rate characteristics."
Again, the original makes sense, and the Massdrop-translated-to-adverspeak doesn't, even though all main points from the original are still there and in the same order, even if they all now blend meaninglessly into each other somewhat. And there's more examples, if you can be bothered to compare the two further.
(Interesting that the "Burr Brown op" phrase is in the original, too, though. I assume they mean "op-amp", but I've never, ever, seen it written as just "op" before.)
Is this standard Massdrop copy-writing practice now? Just find a review of the product online and edit it down and rephrase/reword it enough that the text won't turn up the original in a Google search? I guess that's easier than communicating with the vendor, experimenting with the product, and actually doing your own research, then conveying that understanding in your own words. Much fewer steps.