I have not had the guys in the Audio Club with some different cables over yet due to a business trip. Please be patient.
282 responses Add your response
Why do these responses never (at least none of those I've just read) address the issue of RFI/EMI? Interference is a real issue and so much of the approach to power cord technology is geared in the direction of eliminating the same. So these EE arguments are very amusing. There are plenty of good explanations from people (yes, engineers) who work in the realms of power, transmission, RFI/EMI reduction, etc that one would think that the skeptics would get with the program, but they just refuse to acknowledge that it's possible they are wrong. I'll include this link, but obviously the skeptics will say it's bunk because it comes from a manufacturer of the products. I have to ask the skeptics: if you need advice on hanging a door, do you avoid talking to a carpenter because he sells his services hanging doors? Or do you believe that the door is going to be (ahem) well hung just by virtue of your willing it to be so? (And there are cheap doors with poor hanging specifications and poor hardware, just as there are components with poor power cords attached to them! Imagine!) Anyway, check it out: http://www.shunyata.com/Content/FAQ-Tech.html So much of the argument from the skeptics seems to revolve around the idea that we, as consumers (I.e., we spend money) need to subconsciously validate the fact that we have spent money. Well, once we own a variety of cords, cables, etc, the money's been spent. Swapping out cords and cables is simply an exercise in comparison. And what about the folks for whom money is no object? What about the folks who buy something expensive and don't find a difference they can live with, and keep going until they can? Those people are not reacting to some subconscious need to validate their expenditure; they're just trying to improve the quality sound they hear (and yes, it's their subjective response). The last thing I'll toss out there is that I have an EE friend who is not an audiophile (owns a tech company designing circuitry and writing software for industrial controls/ robot devices, etc)and I tell him about the ongoing disagreement and he laughs. He says "OF COURSE there's RFI and EMI and OF COURSE it'll affect the signal." So it is not all EEs who say the same thing. In fact, I am far more likely to hear the line of reasoning from people who would like to think of themselves as having that knowledge/education, but don't (one being a physics professor at a community college--no PhD-- and the other being a task-lighting designer, news media soundman, and sound support hobbyist who "learned" about things electrical by working in those areas). I call them "self-styled" engineers. Wannabes. |
Will 2012 end without Liguy ever getting his power cord test conducted (pun!)? Here is what Liguy posted in 2001 in regards to biwiring: "After reading these forums for awhile I can finally say that I am a skeptic no longer with respect to biwiring. I recently purchased a demo pair of Martin Logans from a local dealer and found that I did not have enough money to purchase a decent set of speaker cables. As I was getting ready to take the speakers home the dealer stopped me and offered to loan me a set of cables until I had enough cash (Great Dealer!!!) to purchase some cables. Well, when I got home I discovered that the Logans were easily biwirable and that the cables he lent me were biwire cables. When I auditioned the Logans the dealer must have connected the jumpers when I told him I was not interested in biwiring a set of speakers. I figured what the hell, lets give it a try. I connected everything up, popped in a CD and my mouth fell to the floor. Unbelievable. So from one ex-skeptic to anyone who has a doubt. Biwiring works, I am an EE and frankly do not care why anymore." Is it perhaps possible that the doubt associated with power cords could be as misplaced as the doubt associated with biwiring? :) But how are we supposed to conclude discussions when people simply disappear? :( |
Foster 9, I am well aware this is a power cord thread; I posted Liguy's comments to show the inconsistency of his acceptance of biwiring when he was initially skeptical to his resistance against power cords, though he has done nothing (seemingly) to conduct as simple a comparison. I waited a period of time before posting my above message regarding his disappearance. It seems now that the discussion may never get finished. |
When and if Liguy performs his power cord test I hope that he will utilize better methodology than in the biwire comparison that is described in the paragraph quoted by Doug. Note that the jaw-dropping difference Liguy found, and attributed to biwiring, was between the performance of the speakers when biwired into his own system in his own room, vs. their performance when single-wired into the dealer's system in the dealer's room. This was pointed out by several people in the original thread, and only addressed by him experimentally near the end of the thread: I have, at the prodding of many of you who have posted in this thread, tried putting the jumpers back in and just connecting one set of wires. So here is the verdict. It still sounds great! But not as good as with the speakers fully Biwired. Even though the Martin Logans are not known for their bass, the bass is much, much tighter with the speakers biwired.I have referred many times in discussions of power cords and various tweaks to how easy it is to be unaware of and fail to control extraneous variables, resulting in misleading or erroneous conclusions. If an EE and skeptic such as Liguy can make such a fundamental error, perhaps I've under-estimated how pervasive an issue that tends to be. Regards, -- Al |
Al, that's interesting; I assumed Liguy did the comparison between single and biwiring at home as he would have had them on hand, but perhaps not. It would not be a valid comparison to hear them at a dealership and at home and try to draw a conclusion. Good catch. It does seem, however, that he ended up comparing single/biwire in his own rig and his conclusion did not change, which is no surprise to me having obtained similar results universally. You are right, though, that if people think they can compare across systems at different locations they are out to lunch and need to learn some basics about control for variables. :) I think you and Tpreaves need to do the power cord comparison! :) |
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. |
11-17-12: TbgSo you do not see anything objectionable about promulgating a conclusion about biwiring to the rest of the world, via an Internet forum, based on a comparison in two completely different rooms between two systems that were completely different aside from the speakers? Whether or not the poster was satisfied is irrelevant. The issue is that others may be induced to direct their investments of time and money based on conclusions that were reached via methodology that is fundamentally flawed. Regards, -- Al |
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. |
11-17-12: TbgI agree there are infinite number of dynamic variables but you should minimize as many as possible in an experiment. In this case, one obvious is performing the test in the same system. I can't believe you are arguing this point. But it is not a science; it is a consumer's decision about purchases. If Liguy is satisfied, that is it.Purchasing decision is not science but the test that lead to the decision IS ... logic, common sense ... |
Tbg: So very well stated, sir. I echo your comments. I am amazed at how complicated some guys make this process. I've been marveling at that AC outlet experiment thread going on, for example. This is such a simple issue....get an appropriate audiophile AC cable, swap it out for what you have and listen for the result. Nothing else is required. You like what you hear or you don't....done. |
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. |
Tbg, I don't think anyone is questioning his purchasing decision but just the FLAWED test that lead to the decision. It's his $$ and system ... This is a discussion forum after all. I've stated many times, this is the internet with unfiltered data. We don't know who is behind the display and on the keyboard so CAVEAT EMPTOR. This applies to both amateur and pro comments/reviews but over time, you do know who to trust and not to trust. Sometimes I feel for companies (Synergistic) where customers are not using the product as designed and report issues as if it's a problem. Internet is powerful but also dangerous. |
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. |
" I always wonder why any of the Scam police ever buy anything new." Are you saying everything is a scam? :^) I buy lots of things and spend a decent amount of money, but my scam radar is always on, especially on a site like this where expensive items and money is bandied about in a manner relatively loosely compared to the norm. A scammer or con artist might perceive as fertile ground upon which to help relieve people of their hard earned money, especially when nonsense or unsubstantiated claims go unchallenged. Those who ask questions or seek validation of claims based on anything concrete should be welcomed, as long as it is done respectfully. AN open mind is a good thing as well. Everyone should be free to read, attempt to discriminate between fact and fiction, and get on with it as they see fit. Whenever facts are asserted loosely, a red light should go off in each person's mind. Is this a truth, lie, or misconception? All are possibilities. Knowledge is everyone's best friend. Misinformation, whether deliberate or not, should always be considered a bad thing. |
Tbg & Richard, why are we all here? Most fundamentally, as I see it, and as I believe most of us see it, we are here to share information, ideas, and experiences, which hopefully will be mutually beneficial as we try to guide our investments of time and money in directions that stand the greatest chance of being rewarding. When someone starts a thread proclaiming that "I am stunned .... I can finally say that I am a skeptic no longer with respect to biwiring," and it is only upon VERY careful reading of the post that it becomes apparent that this conclusion was reached by comparing a biwired connection of a speaker in his room, with his system, vs. a single wired connection of that speaker in a dealer's showroom, with a completely different system, shouldn't that statement be challenged? And if, as you say, all that matters is that the poster is satisfied, what is the point to his post, and indeed to the forum itself? Frankly, and with all due respect, I am dumbfounded at your positions on this issue. Regards, -- Al |
11-20-12: AlmargI for one agree completely with this statement. Audio is a hobby and people are entitled to approach it however they please, whether it's scientifically or impressionistically. Having said that, many opinions that might be mistaken for scientific are in fact impressionistic. It seems to me that Al was pointing out such an opinion. Of course this hobby is not a science. But many of the methods and values characteristic of science can be brought to bear on the pursuit of satisfaction in this hobby... methods like controlling confounding variables, careful attributions of causes, explicit and precise definitions of concepts, repeatability as a standard for the validity of conclusions, and so on. It's also worth pointing out that many conversations that take place daily on A'gon raise issues with strong parallels in the philosophy of science... issues like the role of perception in knowledge, the various forms of explanation, the nature of truth, controversies about how beliefs should be justified, the relation between speculative theories and more established bodies of knowledge, interlevel relations in complex systems, reductionism, emergence, and so on. For some people, myself included, the "scientific" approach to this hobby enhances their enjoyment of it. It's not only the enjoyment of having a system that is more suited to your preferences, but also the enjoyment of the PROCESS that the "scientific" approach encourages - a process of both discovery and understanding. Bryon |
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. |
11-20-12: Almarg That is what it is all about. Almarg with his background, is always helping people match up components, and helping them diagnose a problem. A lot of us (myself included), learn a lot more from his posts. He has enough knowledge to make a statement about the use various accessories, and other things that may influence the sound of a system. I myself still have not seen any test results of any kind, that shows they work. Manufacturers of audio amps, and all kinds of other components, have to prove what their equipment can do. Not so with these types of tweaks. Also, the tests, and science used to make audio gear, has way more consistent results, than human observation does. Eyewitness testimony is a good example of human err. |
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. " Its undoubtedly true that not everything is known about most anything. But I would argue that in teh case of home audio, all that one needs to know can be learned and applied practically. The ingredients for top notch sound are well known and applied by experts daily. So, if one has already applied the well known good practices, the goal of achieving "good" sound should be reachable. If that is not enough, and one wants to dabble or explore new less understood horizons, that is fine. The problem I have is when people are encouraged to focus on the latter prematurely before perhaps the "fundamentals" have been addressed properly. That is not a happy path to audio nirvana! But nothing wrong with it for those who never want the journey to end even after they've crossed the T's and dotted the I's to the best of their ability.. |
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. |
