Are manufacturer AC cables good enough?

Experimentation in science requires more rigour that almost all audiophiles ever subject themselves to. Every change can't and isn't "night and day", though so often that is exactly what is reported due to confirmation bias and nothing else. Absent knowing the change, audiophiles can rarely with any accuracy identify a cable change which blows that whole "night and day" claims out of the water. Meanwhile they are still "trusting their ears" while having no clue about their room response, nor dealing with the acoustic issues far worse than any cable.

I find it rather funny that people who claim that those who hear no differences "have obviously never done the experiments". Does it ever reach consideration that they did do the experiments, rigorously, and properly, and that is why they have proven to themselves a lack of difference?   

Most would have no clue how MOVs work or appear in the circuit because they would know that effectively when there is no surge, the MOV is would be doing nothing that could impact sound. Now if you mean inductors which are often in surge protectors, then yes you could argue an impact. Whole home surge protectors are usually just a bunch of MOVs in a box perhaps with GDTs depending on where you are.


Most of those construction details you listed are relatively meaningless (except shielding) except on a marketing sheet and express themselves as LCR. That giant filter, I mean power transformer in the equipment is going to be dominant by far for power delivery. The next variable would be ground continuity between equipment and finally shielding.


Absent any real knowledge or information reasonably intelligent people will make up all kinds of "ideas" to support their preferred view. It's not just cables, have a gander at the MDF, Plywood (which extends to aluminum and solid wood) discussion, or discussions about sound stage made without even a basic understanding of how we perceive position or acceptance of basic geometry.

No, that is just a theory of gravity.

That’s what gravity is, the curvature of spacetime due to very heavy objects. It all stems from the General Theory of Relativity.

Other than NGT being a popular scientist but no where near the leading expert, there is a big difference between being able to explain how something works and knowing it exists and being able to observe it's effects or measure them in fine detail. It's the same false argument against evolution, that because we call it a theory, because we don't absolutely know all the mechanisms, that that some how means it "doesn't exist". That is not at all what it means.

djones51, Neil deGrasse Tyson admits that gravity can't be explained! Interesting.....

Well most of universe is a very very far distance away making measurement a bit difficult unlike our audio systems.  We don't know if our gravity equations are wrong, or our measurement of matter is wrong.

We used to think that E = 1/2 m * v ^2, was totally accurate, and for most practical purposes, it is more than accurate enough. Audiophiles or at least audiophile marketers attempt to create reasons that would actual be pretty easy to measure within the limits of any necessary accuracy, whether we understand "everything" or not, and then make excuses about why they can't be measured and attribute that to this global "well we don't understand everything".  They don't even try to reconcile their claims with what we do know, let alone the things they claim we do not.

Never said gravity couldn't be explained.    The amount of gravity, throughout this universe, has not yet been explained.    

No, we can’t measure the mass of a black hole millions of miles away. We can "estimate" the mass of black holes assuming all the other calculations we have about gravity at vast distances and vast masses are correct (and there are some theories that the behaviour of gravity changes with distance). It is probably best not to get all your physics from a 1973 book.

By the way we have no problem measuring anything universe. Distance is not really an issue. We can measure the mass and spin of a black hole millions of light years away, no problem. Or the source of radio signals from space as they’re doing right now.

And again, this is 1970's ideology, and perhaps why this tired expression is mainly used by older audiophiles with memories of low THD (and often really bad IM) 70's amplifiers. We also know more now about what distortion creates what euphonic experiences.  But that is all deflection, because what we are talking about is whether a wire can carry a "signal" power or otherwise, accurately, not, because rarely do we want to have our wires add euphonic colorings to our music, say like a turntable, or NOS DAC, or some tube and solid state amps do.

Now, audio is a different story since measurements oft don’t comport with listening experience.

Irrelevant and lacking sufficient reading comprehension that he does not even realize when he proves someone else's point:

"The distance is THOUGHT to depend on the black hole mass,"

Gallo said. "The larger the black hole, the larger the distance and the longer you expect for light to be emitted from the accretion disk to hit the broad-line region."

And as is well noted, things like the gravitation constant, which is ASSUMED to be constant, do not accurately model the universe we observe, hence things like dark matter, and fudge factors.  As pointed out previously, there are theories of gravity that do not maintain gravity as behaving consistently over distance.

By knowing this number, the speed of the broad-line region, the speed of light and what’s called the GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT.

djones,
I was directing my comment to geoffkait who makes excuses for not doing testing. Blind testing/comparative testing of speakers, is not easy if you want great results. Dr. Toole's goal in those tests were to minimize the time between speakers to maximize the chance that testers could pick up subtle differences. For most other equipment, the changes are easier to make. Of course, according to some, fast changes "don't work" so for those people, it is even easier as you can take your time making the change and let them listen as long as they want.

I have to suspect that anyone claiming "you can't control audio tests easily" has likely never set up an "audio test". Triple blind is the holy grail, double blind works really well when you have an expectation of tester bias. Single blind is sufficient for most work where tester bias is unlikely or communication low.


Even the most basic single blind test is far more rigourous than any sited test all other variables the same.  Anyone who advocates for sited tests, or advocates against blind tests, can be simply ignored. Their ignorance w.r.t. testing of anything involving human perception is too limited to make their opinion of use or they have an agenda that again makes their communication of no value.

Unfortunately cd318, someone felt the need to prove that some will never reach that conclusion or even consider that they are wrong.

No matter which way you wish to go, no matter how little you may yet know of audio playback, or of human psychology and perception, I can guarantee you from personal first hand hard earned experience that you will eventually arrive at exactly the same conclusions.

Why am I here cleeds? Partially Covid boredom, still working lots, but not in nearly as many meetings, and the work day never really ends when working at home.  It's also an interesting cross-section into the "audiophile" realm and the audiophile mindset at this given point in time.  I do like reading the "what's on your ...." threads. Lots of great music suggestions there. I also thought, shockingly wrong of course, there would be more discussion on actually practical and effective audiophile topics like room acoustics and room tuning. That there isn't says a whole lot. People would rather talk at length about things they couldn't even identify in a blind test, as opposed to making significant and noticeable improvements. I think this plays to our lazy instant gratification culture?

What I don't come for here, is equipment "reviews", though I find comments on speakers relevant. Speakers differ so much in performance characteristics that anecdotal reports can convey useful information, especially if people discuss room usage. When someone claims to pick out the performance of a very specific piece of electronics within an overall chain, often not their chain or listening space, I take it with a grain of salt.  Oh, I do find comments on streamers interesting as well, but mainly for UI comments.


Then again, maybe I am just here as a marketing exercise cleeds, you never know do you. Why are you here? 


Uhmm, ya, that is exactly what real scientists do. They quickly dismiss data that is not collected in a repeatable at least somewhat rigourous manner, they dismiss experiments that make no attempt to control for variable, etc.  That has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with validity. When that scientist knows that the conditions for testing lack the requirements to create valid data, they dismiss that data ... with prejudice.

Real scientists don’t allow prejudice or bias to dismiss data; they look at the data, then research and test it.

Don't be silly. Real scientists actually conduct their own tests. They don't dismiss every listener's casual account with a wave of the hand while muttering about the lack scientific control yet making no effort to conduct their own inquiry, to their own standards. (To be fair, that may not fully apply to you, because I saw another post you made where you suggested acquiring some speakers to test.)

I do conduct my own tests, and over the years, 100's in a wide range of large scale and small scale acoustics. Note that I used to do R&D on hearing aids and thing grew out from there on the acoustics and audio front.


Yes, I did say I was going to acquire some very specific speakers, namely something that is a line source. I don't have any in my current "inventory" as my wife calls it.  If you followed that whole thread, the reason for the line source speakers was line source speakers are less impacted by ceiling and floor reflections, though for my specific use in this case, they will just have fewer floor/ceiling reflections, hence the ear would not be presented with strong reflections from above and below that will be filtered and reflected by the upper torso and not filtered by the pinna except as would be a mainly forward sound, and hence, a line source speaker may be able to convey some "accurate" sense of height, if the recorded is made with a HATS (head and torso) simulator with a proper ear mold and microphone position. "Accurate" is in quotes because the effect would be different person to person, but creating some sense of height that bears some resemblance to the real world is an interesting proposition.

P.S. someone had a quote above (or maybe another thread), from Dr. Toole, one of the best known "scientists" in this field, that went along the lines of when someone communicates results of a NON blind test, he just nods like he is paying attention, while writing off anything they say.

I don't write off everything people say anecdotally. When people say they get a sense of height while listening, I don't discount that they actually do, heck I even know the reasons why, which is why I know that sense of height (based on current recording techniques), and listening, is artificial. It may be very good, but it is artificial, i.e. not indicative the recording space ... if there was even a recording "space".  When someone, Duke in this case, communicates in detail, a recording made in this way, played back on these specific (and unique in some ways) speakers, created this specific effect, then I sit up and take note, because there is enough information to possibly either recreate the experiment and/or simulate the conditions (or both).


When someone says I made this minuscule change and the results were night and day (and they almost seem to be either night and day, OR barely tell the difference), then the right response is skepticism. When people are not even willing to accept they may be letting their eyes fool them, well then skepticism turns into dismissal.

This is not what double insulated means. Double insulated means that no single failure point can result in dangerous voltages (with or without equipment grounding). That could be two layers of insulation or reinforced insulation.


The ground connection can also be a critical part of an EMI reduction strategy.

"Double-insulated" simply means anything the user would be likely to touch is made of non-conductive material. In 120V code-compliant electrical systems, the neutral conductor is also connected to ground, and thus, to the circuit breaker.

Which Wireworld, the one that claims lots of double-blind testing, even though they makes lots of excuses for it, but to my knowledge has never published actual testing and/or had fully independent listeners participate in the test and allowed the results to be published? That Wireworld?   Or would it be the Wireworld that erroneously uses the fact that humans can perceive ear-to-ear timing differences as justification that fast speed in cables is important, even though the two are completely unrelated?  Perhaps it would be the wireworld that claims that the small phase-shift at high frequencies with "some" cables causes things to sound "bright" due to prolonging the sound, even though phase-shift in speakers is in general way worse than any cable. Or, is it the Wireworld that claims triboelectric effects are an issue, though it is easily shown through calculation, measurement or experiment, that with the typical source/load impedance in audio, that triboelectric effects are meaningless? .... Which particular one?

Synergistic Research also claims to do exhaustive double blind testing, but again, never publishes anything, nor allows independent verification.

Mr. Denny has never done a double blind test publicly. Never. He refuses .. or makes excuses. Take your pick. But has never done double blind with any verification or validation. 

SR/ Danny has never done a public double blind test. Not at a trade show and not at his factory. I only call them out because they makes claims of doing it (like WW), but always "shy" away from anything public ... I.e. something that would prove the claim. No other vendors do double blind public tests either ... But they don’t claim to do them private or public and many offer guarantees as well.

This should be obvious but I am claiming something does not exist. The only way to prove me wrong is to prove that the opposite is true, i.e. provide proof that a public double blind test has occurred. It has not but feel free to prove me wrong.

rodman999994,357 posts05-16-2020 8:12am@heaudio- So; you, "call them out" with ZERO verification/validation, of your statements (iow, "TRUST ME")?

I made the claim that SR and others claim to do double blind tests but none of them to my knowledge had done a properly administered double blind test in public, i.e. one where the process and results could be verified and validated by others. SR I am quite sure never has. Ted (due to his public persona) has been challenged to do it many times. He has never followed through.

Who cares? The person who posted about Wireworld doing double blind testing, to which I posted that to my knowledge, no public (validated) tests have ever been published, nor by SR, the other company that claims double blind testing. That is all, that is it.  I can't control how others respond to that information.

cleeds2,962 posts05-16-2020 11:37am heaudio

I made the claim that SR and others claim to do double blind tests but none of them to my knowledge had done a properly administered double blind test in public ...

So what? Who cares?

It was truly an ugly exchange on Facebook, but that is his MO. In theory it should be easy to address the criticism and prove publicly the marketing claims, but I guess it is easier to attack people. One of his dealers employees out of Chicago was just as bad in this interchange. That person now runs his marketing.

glupson4,855 posts05-16-2020 11:46amNothing to do with the topic of this thread, but is everyone here willing to patronize the business of a person who insults another one on the basis of Asperger’s syndrome with the language used in those facebook (I think it was facebook) posts?

The posts on here and the depth of them illustrate who has the scientific understand of the topic and who does not. Thank you for pointing that out ....

rodman999994,361 posts05-16-2020 2:03pm"I don’t see much evidence that there are many here who are in your #3 group.   That’s because many of those who would pretend to belong to that group either dismiss mountains of evidence with a wave of the hand or - just as often - simply pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist."     Empty vessels make the most noise!    The source of their hubris: https://code.tutsplus.com/articles/do-you-suffer-from-the-dunning-kruger-effect--net-22227      Those with even a modicum of scientific understanding, realize how much remains, to be explored and proven.

What no one who advocates seems to be able to answer, and this should be a really really easy answer, IS, if the results are so obviously different between these cables, "night and day" as is so often communicated, then why don't suppliers, of which there are many, do these double blind tests publicly, for all to see, so they can easily prove the value of their product. The great thing about a double blind these is there is no bias. Heck, the suppliers can pick their listeners, train them all they want, heck I would encourage it, but the control of the testing must be independent. If they can prove, via independent testing, with a given set of listeners, even a carefully selected group, that you can differentiate between good quality cables and their uber expensive cables, then all this back and forth goes away.

I know I can create differences between cables, i.e. really poorly constructed ones, and tolerably constructed ones, that will likely have audible differences for some listeners.  For interconnects that will be very hard unless there are noise issues particular to that system, and for turntable cables it could be easy. However, once you reach a tolerable level of construction, the diminishing returns are not just small, they appear to be non-existent. Being able to afford an expensive system does not magically improve your ears or brain.

So .... perhaps someone can explain why, since the difference is night and day, no public independently administered tests by these suppliers? I have my theories about that ... what are yours? ... Would you trust someone who said their car got 200mpg? ... there used to be lots of claims of devices like that. What about those claims of "devices" you hook up to your AC line that magically reduce your energy bill by 30%. Would you just "trust" that? .... those both have been proven false.

glupson4,859 posts05-16-2020 3:39pm

"It’s really difficult to take seriously those who incessantly call for blind testing to be done by others."

.....

The requirement is that test results can be reproduced, not that everyone has to do the test before talking about it. To some level it is an honor system. You are presumed of not lying. That is why statements of conflict of interest exist. In this particular back-and-forth about manufacturer’s blind testing, there is a huge potential conflict of interest. Manufacturer may claim it in an advertisement as a description of their methodology, but that is where it ends.

^^^^^
And this would be the typical answer to the question. Excuses and deflections. Is the questions overly hard?  Why don't suppliers do public blind tests to remove all doubt about audibility? It is not a question of they rarely do it ... it is literally they never do it.


Can anyone answer this question without an excuse?

Geoffkait, I think you are confusing blind with deaf. Similar words, different meaning.

Glupson, I think this comes down to extraordinary claims, and while there has been tests on amplifiers over the years that showed that audiophiles can have a hard time discerning relative inexpensive from expensive amplifiers when all other variables are removed (and the speakers are not an overly difficult load), there have also been tests over the years that showed differences. Controlled tests have also shown sensitivity to the distortion profile beyond what would revealed with pure THD measures, IM distortion has been shown to be easier to detect, and amplifier vendors will even tweak the response and distortion to achieve a desired "tone".


The claims for certain products are truly "extraordinary" and the explanations used to justify don't pass the smell test. Sure some of them are "real" things, but real, and being anywhere near audible are completely different. If real, as well, they should be easy to prove.

Would that be triggered or Triggered?

This argument is more akin to the kid who buys a $7,500 car, spends $12,500 souping it up such that it will blow the doors off pretty much anything off the lot under $125k in a straight line, but the person who spent $120k on their car still insists it is faster and brings up all kinds of stuff about aerodynamics, carbon fibre construction, valves per cylinder, variable valve timing, computer optimized air induction, and a whole host of other technical advantages .... Everything but test results to show their car is faster.

No, I look at test reports for televisions. Many of them exist. They look at things like color accuracy, black level, whole screen and area dynamic range, motion compensation, screen ambient light rejection, etc. These are all things that are very hard to determine at your local Best Buy. That narrows it down to a couple models or, even fewer. Considering TVs at shops are never setup properly it’s almost meaningless to review them there. That is not what you do do you? Is your TV still on cartoon mode of the box? How sad for you.

Not the 70's any more.

Yes but video runs on NTSC: Never Twice the Same Color.