Blind Power Cord Test & results

I was part of the panel for this test. My personal results--the number of times I correctly identified if X was A or B--were dismal, and it sort of left me depressed to tell you the truth. I believe the methodology was sound. At any rate, I was satisfied with it. Please remember that the object was NOT to choose which cable we preferred, it was only to see if we could correctly identify an audible difference--we heard A, then B, then X. Was X=A or was X=B. When I make cable changes at home, this is a no-brainer. The differences are IMMEDIATELY apparent, although my long-term preference may not be.

The ABX testing procedure may be flawed, but I can not dismiss the test results out of hand because they do not support my day-to-day experience as an audiophile. Nor will I abandon the hobby. I just want to know what is true. As much as the error may lie with the testing methodology, it may also lie in the ways we normally listen to components. It may be that our eyes and our brand perceptions and all of our other expectations contribute more to what we hear than we realize or care to admit. I choose to keep an open mind about this. Your mileage may vary.

By the way, I just recently moved from stock power cords to aftermarket cords on my Rowland monoblocks. The difference was huge! Even if an ABX test showed me that I could not realiably tell the difference between stock and pricey, I would still make the upgrade. But I'd like to know.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but the A and B in this test were generic stock cords vs. $2500 Nordost Valhalla PCs.

Again, this test was not about how you decide what works or what you prefer. It was about whether or not you can hear a difference under controlled conditions.

I think we have all preferred the "lesser" product at one time or another. That does not refute the hypothesis that we are influenced by brand, packaging, etc. etc. Price is but one component of brand perception.

Warren, what are you talking about? I think you're not paying attention.

Sean, I think you are incorrect to dismiss the process as completely as you appear to be doing, and I'm surprised to read your post. I'll bet that every one of us has heard differences aplenty on other peoples' systems with music they are not familiar with. The panel spent quite a bit of time up front listening to the system, the musical selections, and the two different sets of cords. We could all hear the differences, no problem, until the screens were put up and the test started. (By the way, most of us thought we identified the choices correctly.) The system's owner, who has a great ear and knows his system intimately, fared no better than many of us as far as I know.

We're not talking about Electraglide vs. Elrod here. This was $3 stock vs. Valhalla. I'm still hoping someone can offer a solid, rational explanation for how and why the testing procedure obscures differences.

Good post, TWL. I would lean toward #2 and/or #6. Since I always hear differences myself in my system, #1 and #7 are not conclusions I would ever reach for myself. Everyone wants to believe #4 because they think that they have the real golden ears. There were plenty of golden ears at this test who did not do well. Tom, maybe even you would have had a tough time of it. :-)

And Warren, here's a big sloppy kiss for you: Mwaaaaahh!

Perhaps misleading if you are trying to choose which you prefer. Less so if all you are trying to do is detect the difference. When I make a cable change at home, I can hear a difference right away. A day later, I sometimes feel differently about the difference I am hearing.

In violent agreement, as they say.

What a damn shame they didn't consult you before the test. How could they be so stupid? Thanks for setting us all straight.