Mapman, I only alluded to NASA because of this trite phrase, not rocket science. I do know a guy that used to be in NASA who got surplus electrical wire, he prefers newer stuff. He assured me that current capacity was not their only concern. |
Another reason many manufacturers don't include power cords is that they don't want to irritate many power cord manufacturers while pleasing only one. Also many audiophiles might be irritated that they had to buy a pc that they didn't like.
Mainly, if anything I buy comes with a pc, I just leave it in the shipping box and figure it is worth probably about $3. |
I think much of this discussion focuses on power cord differences that are of low magnitudes. I have certainly experienced instances where I had to struggle to decide which I preferred. Finally, I decided to keep which ever pc I owned.
But I have also had experiences where hearing which pc was better is quite clear. |
Liguy, have you ever heard a properly designed power supply?
Mrtennis, is it possible to design a perfectly neutral cable? If so, what theories would lead you to it? |
Liguy, I certainly can conceive of a power supply that show no response to what power cord is used to connect to the wall outlet, but I have not heard one apparently. I do have a question, however. How did you choose a power cord to use on these supplies? I mean that sincerely also. Did you just choose something from Radio Shack or did you make a power cord and use the same one on all the supplies you made?
I can certain conceive of a power cord that would have poor capability to pass the needed current. Equally I cannot imagine the design principles that would guarantee the very best power cord. I have made shotgunned multi-strand power cords that were more than 2 inches thick and too cumbersome to use easily and which didn't sound any better than those half as thick. I have also heard very expensive power cords that were not exceptional. And I remember once when a Radio Shack pc which I owned so embarrassed the manufacturer of a very expensive silver power cord that they bought several and reverse engineered it to make their "improved" power cord. |
Liguy, I sought no war either, and I totally agree that better power supplies can minimize differences, but that is not the real issue. Are there still differences? I hear them even with some very substantial power supplies.
My real question was how do you find a worthy power cord, given your beliefs. You answered that. Thank you. |
Douglas_schroeder, were this a science there are many factors that would have to be held constant, such as time of day, as electricity demand varies, holding all other things constant, choice of music, etc. But it is not a science; it is a consumer's decision about purchases. If Liguy is satisfied, that is it.
With fewer and fewer dealers and with the proliferation of electronics and speaker manufacturing, even were there many dealers, ones opportunities to listen to comparisons are most limited. Reviews also are of most limited use, as few will have much knowledge of all the elements leading to the reviewer's judgment. A circle of friends whose ears you trust are most vital. |
Mrtennis, is there a definitive conclusion to anything in music reproduction? I always think it is ironic that we only use our eyes rather than our ears in these groups. Certainly no one can demonstrate here the superiority of one brand of pcs, ics, ac filters, line stages, etc. |
Mapman, you say much, such as pcs being overengineered, just overpriced, and not a good value. I am quite comfortable with you holding those as your personal opinions but they have no credence as to being true. I have no idea why you might argue they are over-engineered or how that would be evidenced.
At least you don't resort to Rwwear's nonsense. |
Mapman, I'm sorry, but as I said that doesn't make your case. I doubt seriously given my experiences that many pcs are well engineered or as I would prefer, designed. As we know from NASA, neither are rockets perfectly designed and trajectories perfect, or we would not need midcourse corrections.
I don't expect to alter your opinion, and you should not expect to alter mine. I would never argue that a power cord can solve all the problems with unclean power. Maybe Enid Lumley was right a long time ago, when she said we all need to generate our own power off grid.
All I can really say is that I have heard changes on the same component of many different power cords. Their impacts varied greatly. I certainly don't have cheap power cords, but I have seldom heard benefits provided by very expensive power cords to justify their prices. |
Rwwear, yours is just one side of the constant argument about hearing differences. I just compared two identical cables other than one using long linear crystal copper and the other silver, anyone who could not hear the improvement of the silver should invest very little into reproducing music. But my only dispute with those holding your position is why you care that I don't hold with your position. You cannot provide proof that there are no better or worse pcs. Please don't tell me of the same/different 30 sec. comparisons, they are invalid measures of what people hear. |
Rwwear, life is uncertain. |
Rwwear, I do entirely agree that one cannot compare a large number of cables. But two is no problem. But this is a different issue than saying cables are over-engineered and that cable design is not rocket science implying that differences between the sounds of different cables are minor.
The original post asked if there were differences. I would say absolutely with some being substantial; how would you answer? |
Mapman, I think by your logic on pcs not making any sound, only speakers would have a sound. |
Douglas_schroeder, you say that Mrtennis is saying, "I can't really determine what this component sounds like because I used it in a system, and I have no clue what it might sound like in your system. Weight my comments accordingly."
Apart from the last part of what you say he is saying, it is a true statement in my opinion. As reviewers, we have to hope as do our readers that there is a good deal of communality between our systems, hearing, and tastes. I suspect there is but this sharing is not total. Every time I attend a show and learn what rooms are rated "best sounding" and I totally disagree, I am aware of the lack of sharing.
At its best reviewers, I think, can say this component, cable, etc. deserves your serious consideration. I have also learned over time, that from some reviewers I should ignore this recommendation. |
Mrtennis, "if you compare the comments you can discern the affect of the amplifier change upon the stereo system, but you cannot describe the sound of either amplifier." There is no need to do so. There was a benefit of the second amp over the first. This is all the reviewer need to be concern with.
Diophantine equations are a smoke screen. |
Paperw8, science is to explain observations. People hear a difference, the question for science is why? I strongly suggest that the easy rules of EE fail to account for all that is important.
But in audio reproduction the quest is realism. If a component or cable improves it that is enough for me. I have participated in the invalid 30 sec. same/different tests and cannot be certain of my answers but with a longer exposure, I have no difficulty. Frankly, I have no interest in double blind which to make an analogy is like assessing what cables sound like under different air pressures.
Frankly, I care little whether you give much credence to non-blind reviews or efforts to grasp how the better cable is better. |
Dave, I write for StereoTimes. I did write for Dagogo and for SoundStage. Let's just say they didn't work out. I am the only Norm on StereoTimes list. |
Zaikesman, let us consider what might "qualify" someone as a reviewer. Would it be an EE degree, years of experience in audio, experience as a dealer in audio, knowing many manufacturers, being wealthy enough to not be bought to give a good review to get the component at a good price, being articulate, hearing well in tests, etc.?
When I entered audio in the late 50s, there were few manufactures and JG Holt listened to them and said what he thought without any influence of advertising on his judgment. Even in small towns there were dealers who were more interested in the best audio than making a lot of money and who would get products in where you could go a give a listening. All of this is gone now. Even were I to travel over a hundred miles, I could not hear a comparison of products that interest me. Even going to shows where such products might be in separate rooms allows no such comparison.
What becomes very important now is opinions of others about these products and hopefully a comparison with two that interest us. I think today that reviewers now serve to replace going to a dealer and listening and hopefully hearing a comparison between two of the few available products that interest us. I still remember hearing a comparison between Crown and SAE amps.
I seek always to be aware that others might have different circumstances, tastes, and rooms than I do. I view my reviews as personal experiences, with more substance than just saying "this product blows my mind" or "sucks."
Two of my undergraduate majors were EE and physics. I always had trouble with these two as they often contradicted each other. One focuses on building things that work and the other on exploring how things work. I am constantly aware of my not understanding why quartz some places helps, in others does nothing, and in yet others greatly hurts the sound. There is no theory as to why this happens. There are many, many instances of this, in my experience. All that I can conclude when reviewing such products is that in my system they are very important.
Of course, ethics are very important. In the old days, if a dealer had both products that interested you and you heard one that you liked, there were no ethical concerns other than whether he would honor the warranty. I have no real solution to whether you should trust a reviewer. |
Paperw8, thank you for your opinion. |
Chad, it was inevitable that you make this decision. Now you face the nearly countless alternatives. Few of us have heard more than a handful of what is available. Friends with good ears are your best recourse. Or if you have a true audiophile dealer nearby give what he sells a listen. View it as a quest not as a task. |
Rwwear, this is old nonsense. Most people ignored Randi's challenge, but one accepted it. Randi set such conditions that no one ever had a chance to take the challenge.
Lissnr, ask yourself why Rwwear and Paperw8 bother to spend so much time and effort at their cause? Why would they care if you try different cables? I have suspicions, but I really don't know or care. |
Rwwear, no one owes you proof. I doubt seriously if many audiophiles avoid trying different power cords because several people, imbued with the "laws of EE," claim they could make no difference. |
Rwwear, sorry! I have been in this conversation so many times that I over generalize. I don't believe many of the things that are written either and rather have to test them myself. We I am from the Show me state, Missouri. |
Paperw8, why do you care? It is not your money nor your listening. It sounds like you are offended for others, why would that be? |
Paperw8, I appreciate the civility of your post. These are my responses to each:
1) intellectual interest: I guess this debate has been going on for years and has no resolution. Listen or accept EE laws which suggest little difference.
2) personal interest: this is related to the above. Apparently you want measures such as resistance, THD, efficiency, wattage, etc. I would say that is fine, but personally I think our measures leave much to be desired as they fail to assess what matters.
3)general consumer interest: yes, capitalism and advertising does result in every effort being made to sell product. Hype sells! Unless you want to do away with private enterprise, it will always be there. I am sure many would question why you volunteer to save them from advertising or buying what they want. I suppose one could demand double blind tests for everything, but I doubt if there would be much interest and how would you do that for cars, etc.
Frankly, I think you guys are tilting at windmills. |
Zaikesman, it is a big "if" Paperw8 were to come to your house and listen. I always wonder why any of the Scam police ever buy anything new. |
Rwwear, that is because it is a fraud. How many have tried to get the million? |
Almarg, I don't think anyone expects you to critique their decisions on wine, women, or song. Frankly, I don't really trust anyones experiences, other than a few friends where my experiences and theirs have corresponded frequently.
Also, I am very distrustful of those who use phrases, such as the laws of physics, etc. If I hear something very striking, as I know that our knowledge is incomplete, I ignore such opinions.
As a retired scientist, I have done my duty to the scientific method in noting research that violates ceteris paribus. I do see no reason for your avoiding pointing this out, however, as long as you know it may be ignored. |
Knghifi, I am certainly not saying I would make a decision based on an illogical test, but it is not my decision. That is my point. It is none of our business. Furthermore, what we read by reviewers borders on an illogical test. YMMV should be the conclusion of all reviews. You might want to hear this but never this is outstanding unless followed by in my system and with my ears.
This is true of tests of tires, wines, coffee, houses, etc. I gave up on reading Consumers Reports, but also on Road and Track as not germane to my interests. No one has appointed any of us to be the saviors of others in making audio buying decisions, nor should we be disappointed that others cannot serve us in helping us to make buying decisions. |
Knghifi, having taught research design for 40 plus years, I can tell you that flawed tests are very common. We know from old research that most people have "opinion leaders" whose advice they accept. For most there are NO tests at all. As I said this is not a science, it is just a buying decision. If people are amused to argue about it, I guess I would be better to just ignore it. |
Almarg and Knghifi, I appreciate that you have kept this civil. I am all for sharing personal experiences, but I view them as anecdotal or the weakest form of assessment. But it has some value. If many say the same thing, it has credibility for me. I might have questions.
What I don't like is people saying that this violates the laws of physics or that this is just a scam. We don't know all the laws of physics and certainly quantum physics has taught us to have difficulty understanding some things.
So I am merely saying that it is largely a buyer's decision. It is entirely appropriate to encourage that they hear both speakers in the same environment.
As to what the value of forums, I am somewhat uncertain. I wax and wain in terms of monitoring them. Seldom do I read anything that intrigues me or where I think I can help. Most of these are like audiophile meetings where the topic is always, "mine is bigger than yours." Don't expect agreement on anything in these forums. |
Hifitime, I will just say that I have had too many experiences with audio that belie that our measures, tests, and physical laws cannot explain obvious improvements in audio reproduction. I will mention only a few. The Zilplex room treatments, a set of eleven 1/2" solid silver cups on plexiglass mounts and positioned around room, make the walls disappear. The StillPoints Ultra Five isolation feed just make other isolation laughable. The Urushi caps using a very inexpensive cap and wrapped in cotton twine and treated with urushi lacquer greatly outperform teflon caps costing twenty times as much. I have been in many demonstrations as well as having much personal experiences with all of these. Perhaps there are some measures that might be used in each case to prove my point, but why bother?
Each of these has many competing devices. Why don't all others close shop? In the case of the StillPoints, I know the basis of their "technology," for the Urushi caps, I suspect that vibrations are a key element, but why the use of the urushi lacquer? For the Zilplex treatments, I have no idea save the possibility that they are very small Tibetan bowls. Very much of audio design is trail and error, validated by what we hear, and we don't all hear the same. |
Hifitime, I will just say that I have had too many experiences with audio that belie that our measures, tests, and physical laws cannot explain obvious improvements in audio reproduction. I will mention only a few. The Zilplex room treatments, a set of eleven 1/2" solid silver cups on plexiglass mounts and positioned around room, make the walls disappear. The StillPoints Ultra Five isolation feed just make other isolation laughable. The Urushi caps using a very inexpensive cap and wrapped in cotton twine and treated with urushi lacquer greatly outperform teflon caps costing twenty times as much. I have been in many demonstrations as well as having much personal experiences with all of these. Perhaps there are some measures that might be used in each case to prove my point, but why bother?
Each of these has many competing devices. Why don't all others close shop? In the case of the StillPoints, I know the basis of their "technology," for the Urushi caps, I suspect that vibrations are a key element, but why the use of the urushi lacquer? For the Zilplex treatments, I have no idea save the possibility that they are very small Tibetan bowls. Very much of audio design is trail and error, validated by what we hear, and we don't all hear the same. |
