Blind Power Cord Test & results

Well, since it is easy to determine what differences are audible in cables, whether you use A/B, long term listening, or whatever, then use whatever method you want to, and get the cables you want.

What is so hard about this?

I never have any difficulty hearing the differences, whether I'm looking, or blind, or otherwise. It's simple. Why people make such a big deal about this is beyond me. There's nothing difficult about it. If a difference is heard, then there is a difference. If the difference isn't much, or doesn't seem to justify the price difference, then don't buy it. Is this too hard to understand?

If you like blind tests, then use them. If you like long term listening tests, then use them. However, I would caution that most cables DO have a break-in period(whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it is scientifically based and measureable, due at least to dielectric changes), and the cables should be allowed to have some time on them to make an honest decision. My favorite method is to take some time in listening so that the cable has at least 200 hours of break-in time. Then while listening to the same material, I take notes of likes and dislikes. I then go back to the reference set of cables and allow them to settle in and compare notes. Time will tell.

Have fun and enjoy your cables in your system.

After reading the test article again, it seems there could be several different conclusions.

1) There is not enough difference in power cords to be detected, therefore don't waste your money.

2)Blind A/B/X testing is not an adequate test to determine the differences, so different testing methodology is needed.

3)There is so much psychological stuff at play here that we can't tell if the differences are real or imagined, and the testing protocol provides so much stress that even if there are differences, the people can't determine them under those conditions.

4) Some people can hear the differences and repeatedly get them right, while some people can't. It may have nothing to do with the cables, but has to do with the people.

5) The test system and room, while being termed "state of the art", mucked up the sound so much that the cord differences were obscured in the mess.

6) The use of the Exactpower line scrubber did most of the work that the cables were supposed to do, thereby negating most of the differences that would have been heard when using unfiltered AC power.

7) We now can all go out and get cheap systems now, and get another hobby. We have seen A/B/X studies of cords and amplifiers finding no statistical proof of differences, and probably the same will be true of any other audio products they test. Therefore audiophilia as a hobby is extinct. How about flower arranging, or stamps?

I personally subscribe to conclusion #2, even though I have done A/B/X testing myself in the past, many times, and had no trouble with it. I think that too many variables are at play that can cause many of the participants to be unsettled and incapable of making good quality judgments under the conditions presented.

I congratulate all participants, especially Drubin, who gave it a valiant effort.

I'd suggest this approach.

Amongst the audiophile community, there is a very significant statistical majority that there are audible differences in cables. These are people who have done all kinds of listening tests in their home environments, and many would have preferred to not spend any unnecessary money.

These differences are statistically significant enough to comprise a valid observed phenomenon, over a disparate group of individuals.

Now, the scientific response should be that since existing electrical testing methodology has only shown minor differences,and that A/B/X testing has not determined anything sufficient, that there must be some other testing methodology found to either support or refute this widespread observation.

Case in point: When optical communications networks are used, fiber-optic cables carry the signals. Electricity is applied to one driver, and comes out the other end's receiver as electricity(of course opto-couplers are used in this case, but bear me out). If I took that fiber-optic cable and tested it for electrical characteristics, it would seem that it wouldn't even carry any electricity, and it won't. But that doesn't mean that signals are not carried on it. You have to design your testing protocol to measure what you are trying to determine. When we add in the opto-couplers and know(ahead of time) that we are transmitting light signals with couplers on both ends, then we can measure the performance adequately. Similarly, we don't really know for sure(and this whole thread bears this out) what we are trying to measure. All we know is that the existing measuring techniques are apparently not adequate to account for a statistically significant and widespread observation.

So, one way to deal with it, is to just "dismiss" it as folly, or imagination. The other way is to figure out why the tests are inadequate, and determine new tests that actually can make some headway to finding out how to measure what is so commonly observed. The first step in this is to try to determine what the cables are doing that is not in our testing.

If every scientist dismissed everything that could not be readily measured at the time, we wouldn't know anything at all. Measurements are made to quantify observed phenomenon. Anything that is a statistically significant occurrence, justifies further investigation to find tests that can quantify it, whether they be electrical tests or acoustic tests, or whatever.

Something is going on here with these cables, and it would behoove us to find out what it is, and why it is.

You know, scientists say that bumblebees can't fly, and that from a technical perspective it is impossible. Yet, bumblebees fly all the time. Perhaps we need to do some A/B/X testing to see if we actually are seeing bumblebees fly, or if they are actually not flying, and we are imagining it.

For a hundred years, thousands of scientists and mathematicians have tried to explain how bumblebees fly, and still can't explain it, even to this very day, and this very moment.

I suppose that some here think that we are imagining these black and yellow furry insects flitting about our yards, blissfully ignorant of the "proven fact" that they cannot actually be there.

I'm sure that there must be some psychological explanation for all of us seeing these phantom apparitions that could not possibly be doing what we think they are doing.

You know, it's amazing how widespread these sightings of bumblebees in flight are. One would never think that it could possibly be so pervasive in a society of thinking people who should know better.

Bumblebees have been measured, tested, observed, computer modeled, mathematically analyzed, real-life modeled, and it has been determined that they cannot fly. Boy, I feel alot better, now that I know that.

There is a logical train of reasoning going on here. We hear a repeatable thing, and look for reasons why it is a repeatable thing. But, just because we have not found many reasons why yet, is no cause to dismiss it.

My link to the Bumblebee story
http://www.pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble/index-gifd.html

This is not "religion" or anything like it. It is simply another case where the scientists have not produced much proof to explain a valid repeatable observation. But they have produced some, and even that small bit of proof(differences in resistance, impedance, capacitance, dielectric) shows that there can be some differences that will be audible.

Is this must be the new "scientific" game? "If an easy answer isn't apparent, it must be psychological."?

Just like the bumblebee story shows, scientists don't know everything, never knew everything, and are not likely to ever know everything. Evidently, there are some who think they do.

As I posted earlier, member Aball has written on another thread about a French and German scientific consortium who is studying this very subject, and have already found some things that can be measured, and can further explain why we hear differences. These are hardware measurements, not psycho-acoustic measurements. They have found some kind of "micro-corona" effects around wire which is measurable, and they have produced some kind of measuring device to quantify it. I don't know much about it, but at least someone is doing something about it.

I don't much care about it myself, since I can easily hear the things needed for me to make an informed decision. However, for some who can't trust their ears, and have to lean on numbers for their audio purchasing, this may be helpful.