Objective Studies?


There seem to be endless debates across the internet whether a "power conditioner" (I always conjure a soapy head image when I say that) is a genuine need or just so much snake oil for the gullible in the audiophile community.  There appears to be at least some consistency that concerns about power conditioners should be near the bottom of the audiophile's to-do list.  Yet there are some who claim, vociferously, that power conditions make a huge difference in sound quality.  And so the debate rages on....

What would seem to be helpful is an objective/scientific study regarding measurable differences they can make, if any.  Surely someone has done a valid study of the issue?  I'm hoping to avoid yet another power conditioner turf battle on Audiogon by focusing this post just on whether objective/scientific studies have been done.  If you know of any please share!
kellen
Don’t know of any credible studies. I do know for a fact that DC blockers can work to reduce DC-offset which is a common power quality problem. Some power providers are willing to conduct a quality audit if you have legitimate concerns, like wonky appliance behavior or buzzing transformers. That would at least give you an idea of whether power conditioning is worth pursuing. I find that if the gear is well-designed, the quality of the mains power is not as critical. A high quality power supply will largely filter out the incoming garbage.

 You definitely want to stay away from amps with cheap toroids though it can be difficult to identify which brands are using quality ones.


There are units that will show distortion levels both before and after power treatment, such as some from PS Audio. Of course many units will also stabilize voltage, which is easily measurable.

Are those differences audible? As with so many things in audio, it’s usually best to listen for yourself.
I use one mainly for the aesthetic looks, nicer than a power strip in my rack and it has enough outlets. Is also has surge protection, whether it improves sound I have no idea.
As someone who just built a system, I decided to consult folks here. The smarter ones indicated that (above and beyond surge protection) it could make a sonic difference, but so much depends on (a) the electrical on that line, (b) at that breaker, (c) in that house, (d) in that neighborhood. 

Given all that, the question becomes, what are the objective criteria with which *you* could measure *your* particular electrical situation?

And then, what results would indicate something which could, in theory, be noticeable?

And assuming you figured all that out -- and let's say for argument that you found something which could be noticed -- the next question for you would be, "Is this the next most necessary thing I need to do to improve sound in my system?"
There have been some patchy tests done with various noise sniffer devices, which of course depend in part on the quality and accuracy of the noise sniffer itself.  But the before and after demos I've seen were pretty good.
What we really need is a company like iFixit to purchase a bunch of different units, and get a team of qualified electrical/electronic engineers to tear them down and at least identify what kinds of components are inside and what they are there to do.  At least that would be something.
Why do you need "objective" studies with measurements when you have ears and can presumably hear?  I have no idea whether "improved" measurements translate into something my ears and brain process as improved sound.  And conversely I have no reason to believe that studies measure all of the right things that correlate into perceived improvements in sound.  We are kind of guessing what should be measured and we don't even know if we are capable or aware of measuring the criteria that make a difference to human perception.  
I can't believe how PC it's gotten to claim "placebo" with just about every audio product out there.

If everyone started claiming you're not seeing what you're seeing, would you go about double blind testing everything you think you see by walking into it blindfolded?

Trust your effing ears.

All the best,
Nonoise
The most important takeaway in the objective vs subjective ’battle’, is that a correct theory takes into account and can accommodate for all parameters on the table of discussion.

That is how winning theories become more real, or ’factual’ in the minds of the lesser mental positions and types. (dogmatism, et al)

The prevailing thinking and rumination, in theory and in analysis of the data..in that..the theory that fits it all, is that this ’reality’ is an information field and that some ’evolved’ or interconnected aspects of it...can affect others.

In other words, after much moving down the line in analysis, one’s mindset, and mind, and life energy or complex informational self....can affect outcomes either locally or remotely (spooky action at a distance is unshakably real and unshakably tested--get with the program, do the research!). There are thousands of examples of data in this area, that can all support the point.

So, we find that objectivity, excludes subjectivity, and finds it to be not real, not trustable.

Where as subjectivity, has room for objectivity to be a reality, as objectivity, in the newest physics is 'allowed’ to exist by mental projected force and averaging of such in one given constrained linear blinkered view, and not really any other supports of any kind. Ie, tiny mind, tiny view, tiny result, tiny projections --tiny bubble.

That... an entirely subjective information field of reality can allow for a forced condition/bubble of objectivity, as the figment of imagination/projection/reflection and figment of reality that such projected and lived objectivity is.

Those who exist at this cutting edge of physics and original old and functional philosophy, they try.. as they can... to be kind to the blinkered hardliner objectivists.  Objectivists.. who have tried, like unaware bulls in a china shop...to take over science and live solely in objectivism.. well..

To not stress them too hard.

But to gently poke them in their windmilling weaknesses, every now and then. Maybe some day, they’ll wake up.

Seriously.

~~~~~~~
The subject of high end audio, really hits the nail on the head, in this linear vs non linear mindset and thinking types.

It put the linear objectivist in clash with the subjectivist who can take it either way. Where.. due to the forced projections of the hard core objectivists, those subjectivists who know that this subjectivity is the true state of reality, as it does exist or can be..those subjectivists have to hold the objectivists back. Back from collapsing humanity into weak brain dead dogmatic corralled animals. animals who are corralled, nay, self limited, self jailed by their limited textbooks that are projected as law. Very anti-science, it is.
 
As objectivity is a dead end, it being a small subset of a logically undeniable purely subjective reality, on all possible and potential fronts. Science itself tells you this.

Engineering, as a concept, as a reality, as a thing... was literally formed from the ground up..in and as a objective bubble. Done by the cutting edge scientists, at the time. Seriously., (1720’s to 1760’s Germany)

All done so that the mindset of the many (objective outward looking egoic dogmatic, the prevailing mindset in the bulk of humanity) could be made useful to the whole, and the whole can be helped by the open minded subjectivist who knows that reality is neither linear nor objective, in any way. Thus the rote learning and teaching methodology utilized in linear negative proofing objective science, came into being. Seriously. Engineers are never broached with the subject of their vocational and mindset origins and application. 

Top flite physicists and high level theoreticians and the like --are. If they are of the level of mind required and of the right training...They are generally aware of the linear objective origins of the rote teaching methodology in the idea of objective reality/engineering and how this went down. Why it exists, and so on.
~~~~~
So, when we see the objectivity request, we know that the beehive of objectivism is about to get swatted... and buzz out of control.

For the nth time. As it simply does not know any better.

People can rotate out of singular linear objectivism, but the bulk of it remains (as more/other linear minds grow up and into it) as a mindset that humanity has to deal with.

If anyone here thinks this post is a load of poppycock, well, just start researching it. You’ll find out soon enough.
Reverse Polish Notation, Revisited; v4.3c; The Art of Current Conditioning.

Step 1 - Build your own backyard fusion source.  Best not to 'go big'; the DOD has a bad attitude about DIY....
This is no scientific study.  however, as an example, my neighbor below me in the same building was receiving "dirty" electricity like I did.   He just move in and has a high end system.  When he went to play it, he was receiving all kinds of interference through his speaker.  He bought a high end electricity filter and it eliminated the dirty electricity effect..  Purer sound.  for what its worth.