I have two PS Audio AC3 and two Pangea AC 14 cables I don't use. My thinking is that Ayre wouldn't supply cables that are inadequate for their components. Is that thinking flawed?
Thanks for the link. Interesting article but unless I missed something it is a mere long winded cataloguing of all the various factors that Caelin Gabriel (head honcho of Shunyata Research) believes DON’T make a significant difference to power cord performance.
These include gauge, materials, length, distance from supply, external electrical interference etc. Heretical words for some, common sense for others.
However for an article titled WHY POWER CABLES MAKE A DIFFERENCE, there was seemingly nothing in it to justify its own title.
Upon a careful re-examination however, I think I might have found the passage where this particular audiophile dog may be carefully hidden, I mean buried -
Misconception #4.
"The power cable is effectively part of the primary winding of the power transformer. The transition between the various metals used in a power cable and its connectors can cause electromagnetic reflections and diode-like rectification of the noise impulses as they propagate away from the power supply. If the power cable presents a high impedance to these signals they will be reflected back into the power supply where they will intermodulate, thus increasing the high frequency noise levels of the component."
Now I don’t know what you think of this, but it’s difficult for me not to conclude that this is another fine example of attempting to blind with science - highly questionable and certainly unprovable science.
In other words, Snake Oil, albeit a higher class of that most miraculous audio panacea.
Anyway thanks again for the link. Knowledge shared can sometimes be knowledge gained, but sadly for me, not in this case.
Feynman’s role is overrated by history. Everyone knew that NASA management circumvented the Senior engineers, supposedly Feynman’s major insight, very early into the investigation. Surely by the time the Thiokol engineer testified. There were two paths in NASA bureaucracy, engineer and management. The problem Rogers had with Feynman was he wasn’t a team player, he wanted to be the star of the show. Feynman was lucky to get his words in the Final Report at all. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was ill, as he had been suffering with cancer for many years and actually passed away soon after the report was published. Feynman especially clashed with Al Keel, Executive Director of the Rogers commission and Berkeley post doc, who was just as smart if not smarter than Feynman, and who had performed the final aerodynamic analysis at the beginning of the Shuttle program many years before.
In the meantime not one credible explanation has emerged as to why the last 2 metres of electrical cabling should matter exponentially more than the previous possible kilometres.
I would not pretend to be so smart as to produce this as mine, but here we go:
It’s the Devil’s Teeth. Currently we’re on the path for near the highest day ever. Hel-loo! And they’re talking of disbanding the task force today? Cut me some slack, Jack!
By the way, Feynman was all that swift, himself. He actually isn’t that good at explaining things. But if you like it lap it up. That’s why they kept him out of the Shuttle Disaster Final Report.
"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.]
Which is exactly why I try to confine any exchanges to fellow enthusiasts. It's a total waste of time trying to convince those among us here who regularly post on here to solely promote their business interests.
Their main, perhaps only, interest is to elicit free advertising promotion for their dubious wares and services.
The reader is well advised to bear this in mind as there appears to be more than one or two constantly present.
Hence the incessant attempt to distract, obfuscate, confuse and muddy the discourse.
Just in this thread we've seen the dialogue switch to an explanation of gravity, quotes from respected scientists and something about faked moon landings. Keep it coming guys.
In the meantime not one credible explanation has emerged as to why the last 2 metres of electrical cabling should matter exponentially more than the previous possible kilometres.
sidvicious88 (great name!) amongst others have all asked this question, but so far no answer has been forthcoming.
Or even what it is that the aftermarket cable does that the OEM doesn't.
djones51 asked earlier, "Let's use Feynman, in your words tell why does a $1000 power cord sound different than a $10 power cord of equal gauge?"
Again, no answer to this conundrum.
Or any of the points you mentioned above.
I wonder if anything anyone has written so far been of any help to him?
I feel a spike coming on. We’re up to yesterday’s total and it’s only lunchtime. The Devil has a lot of teeth. Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country!
"...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."
Not to take sides, but in some of the areas of science, it is what practically happens. "Peer" in "peer reviewed" does not have to be "the guy who did the test on exactly the same subject". They do dismiss certain study exactly based on how well it was designed. Controls, sample size, etc., matter. In fact, "methods" paragraph may be the most scrutinized one.
My advice for you: put all this energy you are wasting fighting the holy war into income producing activities. Maybe, just maybe, then you can afford the stuff you denounce as snake oil. Cheers!
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.
That was me and I am going by memory and hopefully we know how that can be. The jest of what he was saying is sighted tests don't relay any useful information and he didn't indicate he was disrespectful in any way.
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.
I take sound quality extremely seriously, but I'm not inclined toward drawing my sword whenever I come across an opinion I don't agree with. I actually enjoy all the backbiting endemic to this site. It's okay. Blast away. As long as you guys don't start dropping multi-ton mono amps on each other's toes.
You should also ask this one why he changed his username from Atdavid and now posting under a different name. It's the same guy. Look at the timelines. Brand new member since February, zero purchase history, and identical "speech" to Atdavid. Same guy posting in Audiogon under questionable motives / agenda.
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
...
I didn't ask why you're here, but I respect the candor in your explanation.
... 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.
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.)
... maybe I am just here as a marketing exercise cleeds, you never know do you.
Oh no, you do sometimes know, and it's part of separating the wheat from the chaff on Audiogon. There are many people here who post under their real identities. And there are many others who are otherwise known, such as everyone buys and sells on this site. Not everyone is hunched anonymously over their keyboard.
Why are you here?
It's a hobby. I've been into music and electronics for as long as I can remember, and got into high end audio in the late '70s. I've been active on various sites going all the way back to Usenet and r.a.h-e., always under the same moniker. As Casey said, "You could look it up."
Not all audio differences or effects are huge or even easily discerned. Sometimes they are aren’t observed, especially on first hearing. Furthermore, any differences or effects that should be audible can easily be covered over and masked by all manner of mistakes in the system or perhaps external factors, time of day, the weather, whatever. Yes, I know what you’re thinking. “But I never make mistakes in my system. My system sounds fabulous!” 🤗
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.
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.
That’s a remarkable statement from someone here who has cultivated the air of a scientist. Real scientists don’t allow prejudice or bias to dismiss data; they look at the data, then research and test it.
Very few people in this forum post results of blind tests, so you must find this forum pretty useless. It makes me wonder why you’re here, although I think I have a pretty good idea.
"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."
These three sentences cannot be any clearer.
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.
You don’t have to try and convince me. I could tell from the beginning you weren’t any good at this. ;-)
Written like a true Golden Ear. At least one of us was willing to actually to see if we can discern differences without cheating ;-) Wouldn't want to threaten one's Golden Ear status.
By the way, Mr. Smarty Pants. I have a little bit of experience with testing. I was the government witness for testing a 2B $ national FAA critical communications program.
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.
If this thread weren’t so hilarious it would be sad. 😢 Hydraulics? What the ding dong? Are they out of mind? Everything is topsy turvy. Me topsy, you turvy. Obviously the audiophile mind can be easily controlled. It’s a conspiracy. It’s a pandemic. 😷 There is nothing in all of audio funnier than watching a bunch of golden ear know it alls sitting around and testing something blind.
The tests, it was more than 1, I was referring to wasn’t easy to set up. It was DBX the randomization was controlled by computer, the speakers were moved in and out of position by hydraulic systems there were 350 people used for the tests. Mr Toole wanted useful data not subjective guessing.
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.
Controlled blind testing works for coronavirus drug tests as currently ongoing when there are very large randomized samples. For audio not so much. There is no comparison between medical controlled blind tests and audio controlled blind tests. Primarily you can’t control audio tests easily. You might think you can but you can’t. And if there is only one blind test the results are meaningless, I.e., no conclusions can be drawn. Come on, guys.
I watched a video of Floyd Toole giving a talk on speaker testing when he was discussing how they do testing he mentioned if someone tells him their experiences he asks how the test was administered if it was sighted he said in my mind I simply dismiss it and nod because I know it’s a useless test. Sighted testing is completely worthless in understanding the effects and differences in products not just audio.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
