What can I say Corona? My mind has a mind of its own... |
I hear differences between PC's on most of my components, some more than others. Do I think these differences would be revealed in a blind test? Could be that they wouldn't: I personally am of the opinion that blind testing is a very good way to *obscure* fine sonic differences, not to reveal them. But I also believe that the placebo effect is quite real, and can be about equally confounding to sighted test results as is the deliberate confusion intoduced by the blind ABX methodology. Still, although I have to admit that some of the differences I've thought I've heard have been very subtle, elusive, or tough to repeat with consistency, others have seemed unmistakable and unchanging.
Anyway, one of the simplest explanations for why the last few feet ought to matter is the question of shielding. A theory goes that a large portion of the EMI radiation the incoming power is exposed to is actually generated by the system components themselves, therefore making shielding an issue between the wall and the gear. Since stock PC's are generally unshielded, if this supposition is true then it could help explain there being an audible difference. This theory might also be turned around: A stock, unshielded cord might be acting as a 'broadcast antenna', radiating 60-cycle noise that could interfere with nearby components.
In fact, a lot of the potential differences could be explained in basically similar terms - that is to say, that the aftermarket replacement cord is doing something competently that the stock cord did poorly. For instance, if the stock cord distorts the incoming power due to spurious internal strand resonances, this might have a detrimental effect just as it could in a speaker cable or interconnect. Or the stock cord might serve as somewhat of a 'bottleneck' during heavy demand (maybe being too light in guage), current-limiting or time-smearing the power required by an amplifier on transient program peaks.
Or, as Drubin alluded to, some aftermarket cords may be doing something active, like intentionally filtering high frequencies. Or as Sean says, the degree of difference might be directly correlated with a component's power supply quality (or lack thereof). But the bottom line is, if you look at a component's power supply as being in the signal path (which I do, since the output of any amplification device represents modulated wall power, and *not* the original input signal passed straight through), then it only makes sense that purer incoming wall power could result in a higher-fidelity output signal. So in an age when most audiophiles are in some way 'conditioning' their power after the wall socket before it hits their components, it additionally only makes sense that you would strive to preserve that powerline purity between the power conditioner and the gear.
The 'last 3 feet' argument-against also overlooks the real possibility that if you could somehow replace all the powerline wire going back to the breaker box, or to the utility pole - or even all the way back to the power-generation plant - with the same aftermarket PC cabling you use from the wall, then the sound would just get even that much better ; simply because you can't doesn't mean you won't be able to hear *some* (albeit less) potential improvement merely by upgrading the final cord (and particularly if *that* happens to be one of the 'weakest links' in the overall power-delivery chain).
But: I agree that the degree of difference made by aftermarket PC's is probably often oversold to some extent or another, and if you can't hear an improvement for yourself, then just consider yourself lucky (monetarily speaking) and continue to listen happily through your stock cords.
P.S. - It is interesting to note that the brand of amplifiers reputed to have some of the most sophisticated power supply engineering in the audio world, the Halcros, nevertheless are now sold outfitted with base-model Shunyata upgrade PC's as stock. Yes, this could just be clever cross-marketing, but it is highly doubtful that Halcro in any way needed to do this in order to help sell their premium-priced product. Given their 'slide-rule-driven' company image, I suspect they've sincerely determined that anything less would truly be insufficient to serve as their 'stock' cord, kind of a remarkable thing when you stop to consider that at these price levels, many if not most of their customers will be intent on immediately upgrading to ultra-premium cords anyway. |
Corona: I have to admit, that is a brilliant stratagem which I'm sure all cable manufacturers would like to institute if they could: Market speakers that are promised to sound correct only with their own wire goods, regardless of what electronics are used (actually, I think there are one or two *speaker* manufacturers who have already pioneered this 'technique'...). Well, why not? - In for a lepton, in for a molecule, I always say! |
Nrchy, I (and I'm sure many others) had an experience similar to yours. Several years ago, I bought an amp (which shall remain nameless for this discussion) used from a local guy. I auditioned it at his house and was satisfied, but when I got it home I wasn't quite as happy after the first couple of weeks or so. I called him about it to see if he had any suggestions, and he told me that when I had auditioned it, he had been using an aftermarket PC (also to go nameless here) which he found indispensable for getting best sound from this particular amp. He wanted about 1/3 of the price I had paid for the amp for the PC (neither was very expensive), but was willing to let me take it home for an audition first before buying. Back then, I had no experience with aftermarket PC's (not to mention a much less revealing setup than I do today), and though I had read some positive opinions about them, I was quite skeptical about the whole concept, for the usual reasons (read: I had no actual listening experience with PC's). So I got this cord back home, and damned if he wasn't 100% correct ; going back to the stock cord seemed to make the amp only half as good as it could be. So I bought the cord and used that amp for the next two or so years, and to this day that was still the biggest difference I've heard in my system concerning power cords (of course, I also had no power conditioner back then as I have had since).*
Eldartford: I'm glad you corrected the post regarding line frequency variations - this is what I thought, but I also thought it better to let someone technically qualified question the assertion. But about your "one of the more ridiculous ideas in audio": I'll grant you that on the $2,000 figure (no cable of mine remotely approaches that price level, though I'm content to let the market figure this stuff out, and understand that a premium cord could be better in absolute terms than the ones I'm using). But if what you meant was merely the cord idea itself, at any price level, I've got to ask you: Have you ever comprehensively auditioned one at home?
*[As a footnote to that experience, a dealer I had bought from in the past, and who's electronics brand lineup included the manufacturer of that amp of mine, immediately poo-pooed the entire possibility out-of-hand when I told him about my test results, based solely on 'principle' from what I could tell. I never returned to his shop again - not because I was insulted, but because I decided he must either be closed-minded or just couldn't hear. I sympathized with him, and understood where he was coming from, but for a guy in his business I couldn't trust his judgement anymore.] |
Hey Sean: While you were doing that, my '60's hollow-bodied Vox 'Bill Wyman' bass was running through an equally old flip-top Ampeg Porta-Flex with one 15", and I'm guessing about 40 all-tube watts. No, I couldn't shake any foundations, but it *did* look really cool the way the clear lucite "Ampeg" logo plaque got lit up edgewise from below when the power was switched on... |
Umm...shouldn't that be a twelve-bar blues? Yours sound about seven bars short of a blues... ;^) |
Must be all those years of listening to nothing but goth and speed-metal... ;^)
I recommend NRBQ's song "12 Bar Blues" (from Grooves In Orbit) as an antidote. Terry, Joey, Tommy, and Big Al will step you right through it...just like riding a bicycle, it'll all come back to you in a rush. :-) |
Corona: Are you implying that your product achieves 'unification' on the sub-atomic, electro-magnetic, and gravitational planes, while operating in 12 looped dimensions so tightly packed into the fabric of space-time that their existence may never be directly revealed to us? (Answer: If the theory's true, than yes - same as for you and me and everything else. But that's the beauty of a marketing plan that invokes untestable hypotheses - you can never disprove it.) |
Corona: "What string theory is asserting is that all revolves around resonance" - that's a cute analogy, but neither you nor anyone else has designed anything based upon employing the equations involved in string theory. (No, I'm not a physicist or EE, just normally endowed with common sense.) This is no knock on your cables (I haven't even bothered to see what company you represent, and whatever it is I assume I haven't heard your product anyway), it's just an observation that if electrical engineering principles were scientifically employed in the design of your cables, then they were the same textbook principles available to be employed by all cable designers. If you've paid more attention to resonance than some, that's great, but as you say you've been doing this for a decade, and I'll take it on faith that you didn't wake up one morning, read something about the emergence of string theory, and go back to the drawing board to radically redesign your cables. Quite the contrary to Flex's hope that some unification theory breakthrough - should it ever come and be verified - might "end the era of snake oil" in cable design, I view this claiming of string theory as a basis or validation for a method of designing and building a cable is just that: the selling of snake oil. Color me unimpressed, and also just that much more unlikely to ever want to check out your product, as I'm congenitally allergic to overweening hyperbole. If your cables sound great, then that'll be my loss, but it still wouldn't convince me that you were somehow operating on a completely different physical plane from all others toiling in the cable field. |
Flex, here are some Corona quotes cut and pasted from above (with some minor editing applied by me for clarity):
"There is only one power cable that is truly different and commands the technology that astounds, but you won't go there because the answer sounds too radical."
"The design concepts we are using are really 'off the map'. However, since the recent advent of 'String Theory' as the dominant position in physics, what we are doing does not seem so 'out there' any more."
"Any of you Audiogoners that have not yet investigated 'String Theory', check it out on the 'net'; its implementation is whatÂ’s going to divide the past from the future."
"So what does 'String Theory' have to do with my audio system, is that your question? Here is a list of conventional electrical engineering precepts which are employed in almost all cable designs to the detriment of all audio systems. The following would not be supported by String Theory:
1. Building a cable without any consideration of the field that surrounds the conductor.
2. Designing a power cable as an isolated entity as if is has no bearing on the performance of the speaker, amp, etc.
3. Claiming that electrical and mechanical resonances are mutually exclusive phenomena.
4. Claiming inductance, capacitance, and resistance are the central issues in all cable design.
What String Theory is asserting: all revolves around resonance."
Flex, here's a quote from you: "The issue here isn't string theory".
While I happen to agree with that last assessment of yours, Corona, it seems to me, is pretty clearly attempting to imply some sort of linkage or support for his design concepts involving said theory, and I'm not buying it. And neither am I buying into his claims that string theory is now the "dominant position" in physics (not for anything involving practical work, it's not), that the theory is essentially "asserting" that "all revolves around resonance" (maybe, mabye not, but that's too simplistic a reduction - more of a new-agey mantra if you ask me - for general applicability here regardless), nor his blanket characterizations of the 'rules' he suggests all other cable designers are allegedly bound to and their shortcomings (or his corollary that string theory somehow contravenes these). The possible merits of Corona's company and cables aside, this approach strikes me as a sketchy marketing ploy at best, and quite likely disingenuous (meaning he knows better). But, I would really think it deserving of the term 'snake oil' only if they were merely repackaging OEM Belden or something, and that I am willing to take on faith is not the case. |
Ernie: No slam on Belden intended - just on anybody (not suggesting Corona or yourself here) who is making cables around OEM wire and then hiding that fact within some sleight-of-hand marketing scheme.
Speaking of which (I've read rumors about NBS around here...) S23chang, anybody can make a $10K IC (you just make an IC, and then charge $10K for it). But if I could actually *sell* a $10K IC, I would shut my mouth right there. And when NBS has advertised, this is exactly what they have done, as far as I can see: A glossy black page emblazoned with their logo, and zero product info or claims, other than maybe a lonely sentence fragment to the effect of being 'world's best' or somesuch. Maybe yes, maybe no, but whatever the case may be, the predictably gargantuan profit margin is courtesy of self-generated 'mystique' and the wisdom of P.T. Barnum. (Whether or not that approach is actually a better long-term business model than simply selling a great product at a fair price is another question, but it might work for a few in an overcrowded market.) |
Corona: I think people basically *are* saying theoretical physics has nothing to do with great sound.
Give me a jingle the next time a Nobel Prize winner decides to go into the audiophile cable business... |
Corona: FWIW, I am not, among other things (like being an engineer or scientifically trained), a 'measurements uber-alles' type who doesn't like to rely on his ears (not that I feel ears can't be fooled!). It would be a false sylogism to suggest that someone discounting your string theory inferences is by implication rejecting subjective auditioning, or is a 'slave' to design-by-numbers. I tend to believe that there are likely many aspects of audio design for which there may not be very informative quantitative measurements available, and that qualitative judgements ultimately must come down to the human ear. For the most part, I am open to the proposition that any piece of gear deserves to be judged by listening to it, but there is simply too much gear in this world, and one of the factors I employ in the winnowing-out process is to preemtively reject gear I feel is being marketed based on some sort of specious claim, such as the fast'n'loose bandying about of pseudo-science, or the deceptive distortion/excessive extrapolation of true science.
So though I feel I am reasonably open-minded without being gullible, I do want my gear designed by scientifically competent engineers, and I likewise want its performance attributes explained in some sort of plausible scientific context. There may be some merit to your claims regarding 'symmetrical resonance' between PC's and PS's or whatever, I don't know. All I know (OK, think, but I'm sticking to it - at least until you come up with a more coherent argument than, essentially, 'you know too little to disprove me') is that even if those claims were supportable, they would still have nothing to do with sub-sub-atomic theory and nothing to do with field unification, as three of the forces involved (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity) haven't any bearing on electromagnetic phenomena observable or manipulable on a human scale within the present state of our universe, to the best of my knowledge. I suppose if one wanted to design a cable exclusively for use at the moment of the Big Bang, then a working knowledge of a valid unification theory might come in handy. (That was a joke.) Until then, I'm taking the eminently non-revolutionary position that you're working within the same parameters of physical possibility as any other cable designer, but that you enjoy pretending otherwise, dubious as I personally am about that plan's marketing efficaciousness. |
Clueless: I bow down before your boffo-ness, and will henceforth only connect my soup cans with CryoThermionically-treated tiny jock straps. :-)
Nrchy: This is a minor, tangential point, but I have a compulsion to chasten any time I hear someone setting 'fact' and 'theory' in opposition to each other ("...much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best"). (A classic instance of this confusion concerns the biologically foundational theory of evolution.) A 'theory' is best understood as a model for reality, meaning that any useful theory will not be contradicted by the facts as they are known - even if that theory is itself not directly testable - and that the theory can explain (or can be modified to explain) the observable facts. To call an idea about how the universe works a theory is in no way to denigrate its validity, provided it is supported by all the available evidence. Indeed, some of the most predictive science is theory-based - maybe, someday, String Theory included. |
Nrchy: I agree with your statements about measureability not being the end-all in audio. I do believe that any difference which can be heard *could* be measured, if only an adequate test existed, and also the corollary that although measurement might not reveal any differences, differences might nonetheless still be audible. I am comfortable with viewing this inconvenience as being not at all contradictory to the scientific aspect of the art.
As for the supposed gap between the weight we might accord to 'facts' and 'theories', two things: 1) 'Facts' can be found to be incorrect or incomplete, same as theories, and 2) facts in isolation don't necessarily tell us very much about how the world works when taken outside of the conceptual 'big picture' provided by theories.
In any case, the demand for the preponderance of evidence falls to the party making the assertion for a new way of looking at the world before it falls to skeptics for possible refutation. Corona's claims can't be specifically refuted when they're not being specifically laid out in the first place, and this he knows very well. Merely stating there could be a lot we don't yet know about the world doesn't make his leaps of apparent illogic any more convincing, absent his presenting some sort of persuasive argument and evidence to support his claims.
If this is denied - as I fully expected and have found it to be - based on vague assertions of market propriety, then he still *could* perhaps deserve to be taken seriously *if* he were able to demonstrate that his product is clearly superior to those not possessing his secret alleged technology. But without a good faith attempt to educate us on why we might expect this to be so, it just goes with the territory that many potential customers won't feel he has earned that chance.
Oh, and BTW, exploration and science may not have changed the universe, only helped explain it, but they sure as hell have changed our world, for better or worse. |
Corona: I'm not sure exactly what you intend to imply by that 'question' (Maybe that nothing you could say would be good enough for me? Not true! - though you're correct if you assume I would still likely take exception with your underlying assertions about the applicability of String Theory), but the answer to your query is "no" regardless, since I don't believe in the existence of any deities. Beyond that, I think the criticisms of your story so far, as stated by myself and the others, have been laid out here cogently enough to be readily comprehended. But we can just agree to disagree: You'll miss out on a potential customer, and I'll miss out on what might be a decent, possibly even superlative, power cord. It's called freedom of choice, and I suspect we'll both live to fight again. Happy listening! |
Oh good grief - Yes Corona, you're Orville and Wilbur reincarnate...Well, Happy New Year everybody, I'm off to floss my teeth with String Theory and then it's nitey-nite time, when I curl up underneath my appealingly familiar security blanket and close my eyes... |
Corona: For a guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about, you certainly have a very persnickety speaker there... |
Albert, I think your method of choice is plenty scientific, or at least as scientific as choosing a cord based solely on 'scientific' notions of what 'should' be the case without listening. And the fact is, enjoyment is enjoyment, whether we can 'prove' we hear a difference or whether we can only *say we think* we hear a difference.
I have no doubt that if Corona's cables are physically unique in *any* way compared to all other cables, then they may - even probably will - sound different from all other cables to a greater or lesser degree. I say this about *any* brand of cable, or indeed any piece of audio gear period. But I realize that even were I to subjectively come to the conclusion after auditioning that Corona's cables were the best-sounding (to me) cables in the world, that fact *still wouldn't* validate his claims about *why* they might be the best. And I *still wouldn't* place any credence, only discredit, in his (non-specific at best, deviously misleading at worst, and completely ascientific any way you look at it) invoking of untestable String Theory to explain the differences. |
Albert: Maybe Corona will take you up on the audition offer, but I already stated previously that I am not interested, as a rule, in checking out products which IMO are marketed using specious claims. And oh, yeah, my system's alright I guess, but I don't know that even one at the exalted level of your own is up to testing whatever it is that S23chang is talking about (and I play the guitar... ;^)
Actually Chang, if you want to extend String Theory to guitar playing, there's an example of what we might call "Cord Theory": Albert Collins, the great, late Texas blues stringslinger, always got a distinctly unique guitar tone that no one else gets. I've read many items speculating as to why this was so, ranging from his idiosyncratic unconventional-open-tuning-plus-capo instrument set-up, to his Telecaster-fitted-with-Gibson-humbuckers axe, to his pick-less thumb-and-forefinger pluck-slap right-hand technique, and all of this undoubtedly does have something to do with his personalized tone. But some time after I saw him in concert at DC's famed (but now-history) Cellar Door in about '82, I realized what his real secret was. He used a custom-made, 100ft. long cord so that he could perform his trademark walk-out-of-the-club-and-keep-right-on-playing-out-in-the-street showmanship routine, which he began doing way back in the day years before cordless radio instrument/amp-connection systems were available. But he kept on using that cord even after they were, and used it in the studio too. One day after seeing that show, I happened to be playing somewhere away from my usual rig and had to plug in using something like a 30ft. cord, the longest normally sold. Lo and behold, I heard a faint trace of Albert's trademark tonality coming through - it was presumably the cord's extra capacitance vs. the common 10ft. or 15ft. cords at work.
Anyway, as I understand it (meaning in no way technically), "String Theory" is a grand, entirely mathematical, theoretical physics construct designed to possibly provide a 'unifying' framework for connecting the four more-or-less-observable fundamental types of force at work in the universe, namely gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force. I think the math is supposed to work out to imply that matter-energy actually consists of infinitesimally tiny elemental units of existence described as being 'strings' which manifest as the various types of more-or-less-observable members of the 'particle zoo' through their different 'resonant' states, and which constitute the 'fabric' of space-time within 12 or so 'looped' dimensions. And this math, if correct, is supposed to apply in all instances and conditions right back to the moment of the Big Bang, unlike the equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, etc. Or something like that. The theory may never be confirmable through scientifically testable means. But regardless of whether or not these 'strings' actually exist, they (as of now) have nothing directly observable/dectectable to do with our everyday world of guitar strings, power chords, or power cords. |
Albert: That's why you are a better audiophile than I. :-) |
JB, be sure to keep track of the distinction between a marketing angle that impresses as 'snake oil', and the entirely separate issue of whether the product itself might be described as such.
In my own system, when I got my Levinson 380S preamp - which is not entirely friendly to aftermarket PC's due to its requirement for a right-angle IEC plug, connected on the unit's underside - I asked some dealers who handled the line whether in their experience the piece responded to upgraded PC's. Several sources opined that the internal power supply was so good that no improvement would be heard, and not to worry about a PC change. I wondered if this was a position taken as much out of convenience as of conviction or experimentation, so I persisted until I got another dealer to admit that, yes, it could make a small but worthwhile improvement, but since telling a customer so just created a dissatisfaction that wasn't easily addressed, the other story prevailed. (In fact, the story I heard from all the others was so consistent that I began to suspect that maybe ML reps had hipped them to it as a method of deflecting a predictable objection.) So I decided to prop up my 380S on top of some temporary improvised supports which would allow a straight-plugged cord room to exit without excessive bending and listen for myself. Sure enough, just as I've found with all my other gear, a better cord did indeed make a difference, though in this case the improvement was definitely toward the lesser end of the scale. I think better-designed power supplies can help avoid excessively bad effects from using stock PC's, but I'm not sure it's possible in electronic gear to design-out upgrade-PC benefits completely. |
Corona: Those words you addressed to me in your last post impress me as being completely devoid of meaning, but if you feel the need to expound further, please address the whole forum, so I don't feel obligated to respond personally if I perceive you the same way again. |
Over 30 $1,500 PC's in a year? Power cords been berry berry good to you... :-) |
LT - You said: "please don't tell me your hearing is more acute than electronic test equipment!"
Umm...I've gotta tell you: Your hearing is more acute than electronic test equipment. (So is mine and everyone else's whose hearing is reasonably intact.) In certain, important ways, that is. Think about it a bit - you already know what I'm talking about.
Your post seems to imply that you have never heard any differences between any wires at any position in a system. Well, consider yourself lucky or cursed, but you are psychologically predisposed not to, and your experience can't disprove what might be true for others. (Oh, and there are measureable differences among cables. And unlike some other kinds of powerline tweaks, some pretty plausible theoretical points can be made for why aftermarket powercords could make a positive difference.)
But I won't argue with you on the price vs. value issue, except to say that it is not unique to the cable segment of the high end. |
LT: I agree with everything you said in your last post, but this is your prior statement I was mainly responding to:
"Absolute snake oil...The notion that you can 'hear' an AC cable flys in the face of common sense. There have been too many failed 'blind' tests, convincing test data (please don't tell me your hearing is more acute than electronic test equipment!) and not to mention the laws of physics."
This part I must have misinterpreted: "I don't completely discount the possibility that cabling in the signal chain, or even an AC supply cable can make a sonic difference, whether for better or worse. The caveat is: there MUST be a measurable difference in electrical parameters to explain it..." I took that to mean that you doubted such measureable differences really existed. (Not to mention maybe even a few we don't know to measure for...)
Also 'for the record': I've personally never spent what I consider to be unreasonable prices for PC's (used, natch), but even so, some of those I was eagerly hoping for an improvement with I turned out not to like the sound of. I'll have my worms fried, whether canned or fresh, on the theory that you can eat just about anything if it's fried (...and some might say you can also *hear* just about anything if *you're* fried ;^) |
