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?
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.
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!” 🤗
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"...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.
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!
"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?
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
@cd318 --- I knew exactly what you were going to say. And I regret even trying it. Carry on with the snake oil theory. In fact, if you are so convinced with said snake oil theory, why do you even participate in cable threads?
P.s. you missed #3, with a reference to #1. That was the answer to exactly asked you in the first place: "...
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."
the power cable presents a high impedance to these signals they will be reflected back into the power supply
That's easy enough to figure out just measure the $$$ aftermarket power cable and the stock cable that came with the amp and see if there is a difference.
Misconception #3 is nonsense audio components don't have perspectives but anyway why 6 feet? Suppose your magic cable is 12 feet does the amps perspective change? Lets make the cable 30 feet and connect to the panel box what's the perspective of the amp now, does it know a breaker and bus bar is now the bottleneck? What's the perspective of the wires after the power supply? Complete idioticy.
...
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.
Logical fallacy alert, straw man argument. I don't recall anyone here claiming exponential improvement.
Yeah, sure. What’s the problem, you don’t trust people from the NSA? The $250,000 Tenor Rockport system I participated in at CES with Shunyata cables won best of show.
The key (in my opinion), is, when you went to the dealer to demo the specific equipment, what power cord was the dealer using when you sat and listened and heard that incredible sound.
Sometimes, I wasn't paying attention, but now a days, I definitely do notice what cables/power cords, etc. the dealer is actually using.
This is the very top of the bait and switch mentality. You are so amazed at the sound you are hearing that you fail to notice the many other things that directly affected the sound projection.
1.) the room 2.) the equipment connected that also affected the sound 3.) the cabling
So, if, when listening, the power cord used was the one supplied by the manufacturer, then you are good to go. You can choose to upgrade later if you like, but if it sounded great with the manufacturer supplied cord, I don't see a problem.
If, on the other hand, the cord used wasn't the manufacturer supplied cord, then that is a totally different issue altogether.
Most of my equipment uses the manufacturer supplied cords and the system sounds wonderful. I imagine that yes, with higher quality cords, it may (probably will) sound better, but..... diminishing returns apply here.
Proper gauge cables that can handle the power/voltage/current requirements and the very minimum acceptable for equipment. However, you also start getting into internal cable impedance's that can and will vary over frequency, which if the connecting equipment isn't designed well enough to handle the changes, will affect the signal and hence the sound.
I remember a while ago, I purchased a Mark Levinson 23.5 amp used. The seller shipped it with the non-standard power cord and it sounded as if the artist I was listening to was being strangled. I contacted the seller and told him this and he agreed that he shipped the wrong cable. He shipped the correct one later and it totally changed the sound.
Take this with a grain of salt. This to my Engineering mind tells me that the first cable wasn't the correct gauge cable for this amp.
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.
