While I consider the statements about amplifiers being fully understood to be as absurd as statement as was ever made in the history of the world, the statement cannot be currently disproven.
As design continues to improve and the next big step is made we will all recognize that there was something about amps that maybe we did not firmly grasp.
That is as absurd as saying you know everything about your wife. People will never know everything about anything in this life! |
Agree with Eldartford - engineers & competent (& even some incompetent) designers fully understand the minute workings of power amps! The electronics, electricity & electro-magnetic concepts that are needed to design an amp are what I would consider basic in all 3 fields. YOU might not understand these concepts thoroughly for very good reasons & you might be extrapolating your lack of knowledge onto mankind! There is very little hi-tech in a power amp as it uses a lot of high power devices, the operation of which is very well understood. That's why ss power amps last a lifetime! Rowland's Model 201 use a new switching power supply module. It's new for audio but in use elsewhere (space exploaration, for eg.) for a long, long time. That type of power supply module is also very well understood! In fact improvements in power amps comes mostly from leaps in metalurgy (better hook-up wires, passive components, etc). |
Zaikesman:
The God thing was a joke. I did not see anyone as a potential customer; what I would like to do is contribute to a change of direction in audio. If you ever decide to look for the Isness Im sure you will never find it in belief of any kind; but that is another topic. Have a good one and well get back to you later.
Eldartford:
I respect the fact you built your own pc, keep it up. You and Zaikesman [and a few others] have been tough as nails but also interesting. I have enjoyed the dialog and will continue to look for you guys. I hope you both have a happy new year.
|
Nrchy...Contrary to what you say, the workings of an audio power amplifier are understood "in all the minute details" by any competent engineer, and even by some incompetent ones. Cosmology is totally different. |
Corona...You are right about me building an experimental power cord, and plans for a test to see if it had any effect vs the very small zip cord that came with the power amp. I have got the cord all made and ready to go, but I always seem to have something more important to do than to install it on one of two monoblock amps, and run the test. My cord simply immitates features of some aftermarket cords, and apart from having a lot of copper in it, I doubt that I will see any effect. This project is low priority. |
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! |
Zaikesman:
Are you expecting an endorsement from God? |
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. |
Eldartford:
...Hypothesis is tested by examination of data from tests that ought to be affected by the hypothesis. If most of data corresponds with what would be predicted by the hypothesis, it becomes a Theory.
The intention of the following statement is to promote the evolution of a point.
Many months ago you were constructing a power cable. We had a brief discussion about its design.
I suggested with an admitted lack of sensitivity: Thats not the way it works. Do you remember? Now you state: I consider power cord effects to be a hypothesis. When one has *NO* research to back up a design what other conclusion could you have? Before constructing your cable did you know or have an insight into the importance of:
1. Resonance signature of the conductors, both as a single filament and as a bundle?
2. Did you know the resonant characteristics of the dielectric used and its effect on the conductor bundle?
3. Did you know how this package would interface with the characteristics of the connectors used?
4. Did you know the field interaction between conductors or filaments?
5. Did you understand the field relationship between the conductors that were in polarity opposition?
6. Did you understand how this construction was going to interact with the attaching power supply?
If you did not have this knowledge, then I agree you were truly constructing a hypothesis. For a cable to be an effective tool with dramatic performance it must be a theory based on results not something founded on belief.
|
Eldartford, I think there is a lot of correlation between the two points. Just because we understand some of how an amplifier works, doesn't mean we understand all the minute details. In that respect there are many similarities between cosmology, quantum physics, and amplifier design.
Zaikesman, the point was that there is a difference between fact and theory. If it is only a preponderance of evidence, the gap still exists. I am not denegrating theories. I am simply pointing out that theories do not have the preponderence of evidence that a fact does, so based on that they must be considered to less 'concrete' than fact.
All I'm trying to say is that what will all of these arguements that say "we can't measure the difference therefore there must not be a difference." will have to be reevaluated if/when someone brings the next advancement to the electrical sciences.
When the Catholic Church said the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe, those assertations did not change the facts. Exploration and science have not changed the universe, they have only verified it.
There is much more verification that can and will take place in regard to our knowledge of electricity. |
said above >>Not all theories are equally well supported by data.
With regard to this thread string theory will never be subject to verification or data. It is almost pure mathematics, and will likely forever remain so, which has caused some physicists to call it metaphysics rather than science.
This was on of the reasons for my "buffo' above. The idea of going from string theory to hands on power cord conclusions is so silly, imho, as to make my posts look "normal."
Cheers
I remain |
Zaikesman...I think that the way it goes is that, first, someone comes up with a "Hypothesis". At this point it is pure conjecture. Then, the Hypothesis is tested by examination of data from tests that ought to be affected by the Hypothesis. If most of the data corresponds with what would be predicted by the Hypothesis, it becomes a "Theory". Not all theories are equally well supported by data. However, when there is a great deal of good supporting data, the theory is called a "Fact". Few people would argue that the theory that the earth is round is not a fact.
I consider power cord effects to be a hypothesis. |
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...Because cosmology and quantum physics are not fully understood this does not mean that we don't know how audio amplifiers work. You need to keep your skepticism within reasonable bounds.
There is a book which I enjoyed reading, and I think you would too. "The Big Bang never happened". Get it from your library. |
Eldartford, I don't think science is anywhere near as mature as you and others might suggest. We understand the basics of many things but the details of very few.
I have studied college physics and mathematics, and for the most part been successful at it. This 'little bit' of knowledge (along with being a dangerous thing) has piqued my curiosity to continue the study on my own, not by experimenting, but by reading and studying.
I find it amusing that the cutting edge scientists in most fields are far less dogmatic than their followers. There are far fewer hard fast laws among the elite than among audiophiles, and high school teacher. Many admit that much of what is taught as fact is theory, at best.
Teachers were far more convinced of the origin of the world, and man before 'Information Theory' was developed calling into question many of their assertations. These questions do nothing to change the minds of those who do not participate in the study though. I merely use this as an example. I have no desire to enter into a futile debate over the merits of origin, or Information Theory.
I do not own equipment which measures poorly, but sounds great. I guess the reference here is to SETs. I have never heard them, for that matter. But if they sound as good as their proponants say, does that mean something is wrong with SETs, or the tools used to measure. The opinion is that we don't understand what we are trying to measure for the most part, so we don't have the tools to accomplish our desires.
Again I return to the analogy of Dwarves on the Shoulders of Giants. Those who came before went as far as their technology would allow. Now 'modern science' has to build on their foundation, and continue the work rather than sitting back and saying the work is finished. Our technology has developed over the years and we should be able to go much farther than our scientific forefathers. In many areas science is continuing to develop, it just takes a while for theory to affect practical application. Does anyone really think that the stereo systems of today are the best there will ever be? Of course not! That's because science is going to continue to grow and allow for the next great wave of improvements. Those improvements will be in areas which are not properly understood today. Hopefully someone will understand another area of measurement in what is existing now that will allow for the explanation of something not yet understood, and all of us will ride the coat tails of this new breakthrough to experience even better systems and I'm afraid to suggest, even PCs!!!
There is much about ourselves and our own world that we do not understand. To suggest otherwise is simply foolish. There is much for science to learn. Science is the first to admit this. Consider that science has often been wrong in the past, and has admitted as much once proven to be fact. This is a step toward maturity!!!
I wish those who speak out in the name of science would follow the example of the ones with more understanding.
The older I get the more I'm conviced that the person who has the answer did not understand the question. That's only a little bit of a joke! |
Hi Eldartford and Hw61:
Ya 61, their unit is almost as big as mine but mine is bigger!
However, it's not so much the choice of Bell wire or zipcord. It's the proprietary treatment of the wire that counts. My zip- cord is CryoThermionically treated. This process is based on extensive studies on the signal when we are more than 1,000,000,000db down on the main signal! We could never get there without the signal accelerator. At this fundamental level the signal is not broken down into anthing that resembles tiny strings so much but rather tiny vibrating jock-straps! Some people will scoff at this I am sure, but who cares what the bone-headed, number-crunching crowd thinks! As I see there are many non-believers in this thread I think it incombent upon myself to establish my credentials with regard to such research and I invite Corona to do the same.
Clueless
Curriculum Vitae
-Kicked out of High School Physics for naming R&B Band Fourier Transform.
-Kicked out of band for naming it Fourier Transform.
-Depressed and desolate, begin lifetime obsession of collecting and sorting discarded lamp cord in basement.
-Graduated: with High Honors: Omars_ OnlineElectronics Degrees.com
-Published: 101 Audio Uses for Lamp Cord, Lamp Cord Review Journal, Vol. XXVII, NO.34, pg. 217.
-Elected: Fellow to the prestigious A.O.K. (Association of Online Know-it-alls)
-Patent Pending: No. 1,005,560, CryoThermionic Rectifier(CTR Tech.Inc.). Simultaneously chills, burns and rectifies lamp cord into really righteous cable.
-Show Stopper: CryoThermionically treated lamp cord voted Best of Show in any class at GES 2002 (Gullible Electronics Show).
-Elected: Perpetual President of the prestigious A.O.K. (Association of Online Know-it-alls)
-Founder and CPA (Chief Pretentious Audiophile): of Really Righteou$ Cable$, Inc. Our Motto: From the Looks of You -You Cant Afford It
-Bought out by Harmon Holdings, Inc.
-Retired. Writing sex book w/ Mark Levinsons X. Im writing the chapter on impedance matching. Nothing takes the thrill out like an impedance mismatch.
Sincerely
I remain, |
Clueless...Nice toys! Don't you think that zip cord is overkill. I suggest bell wire. |
Clueless, I always wondered what they were doing out there behind the fences in Aurora. Wow, it's the world's largest power cord research facility! |
Sign wave analysis is heavy stuff and not for amateurs. Here is
a picture of my buddy and I in my audio signal analyzer. I runs along under our whole neighborhood. Here is a shot of us moving in the magnets and a view from my Lear Jet looking down. The signal analyzer is the circle. We run audio signals at each other at high volume. Here is a read out of an audio signal event when we ran Hendrix out of phase. And the nuclear core near meltdown My proud family watches in excitment. Based on extensive research I've gone back to zip-cord. Sincerely I remain, |
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. |
Corona...I have never heard of "sign wave analysis". Please explain. |
We consider the power supply/power cable assembly as one unit. It is the most misunderstood and most important aspect of an audio system. We take measurements but not the kind youre talking about. Here, sign wave analysis reveals partial insight to a problem that is very unique; you must make the map fit the territory not the reverse. Resonance interaction, field theory and field isolation all play a major roll in power conveyance and interactive symmetry. In other words, the pc must convey power with no lag time and match the power supply's resonance signature or disruption in flow energy will occur. This problem requires a break from traditional thinking to achieve the goal we all are looking for. Because power supplies are not standardized an array of alternative resonant signature designs must be utilized to match every application. |
There is no little irony in one poster (Narchy) supporting Corona by attacking numbers/measurements, while Corona claims to rely on string theory which, is entirely based upon mathematics, and which always will be.
PS:if anyone wants a nicely written, easy to read overview of string theory try Brian Greenes The Elegant Universe. It has a very well written overview of the state of physics leading up to string theory too.
Cheers,
I remain |
To the people opposed to not making measurements:-
You are fooling yourselves if you are thinking that mankind has very understanding of electricity! In fact, we have a very vast understanding of this subject - more than you can imagine. I'm quite sure that you do not have much visibilty to this fact. Some of the best minds of Planet Earth have worked & are working on the subject of electricity & electronics. It's just that these people are not/do not want to be employed in the audio manuf &/or retail business. The manuf., retail & user community is as good as the people that comprise it. We do have a lot of kick-butt people in this field but there seems to be a very large mass of un-educated people. In my experience I have observed that the more educated the person is in this audio hobby/obsession field the simplier their systems are - they spend more money on this things that make a real diff such as dedicated circuits to their setup, clean power supply & even battery supply if possible, their electronics is rarely the highly advertised hi-end brands rather it is some esoteric make where the designer concentrated on making gear dedicated to the accurate repro of sound, their connections between systems are simple using un-hyped interconnects & power cords & I see them talk more about music software, the emotional impact of their repro sound on them.
I'm convinced that this does not come from running from pillar to post trying every power cord under the Sun! I think "Slappy" said it correctly right in the beginning of this thread - you can't crawl thru a 20 or 200 foot tunnel of cr** & then appear in a tuxedo expecting us to believe that you are clean! The final presentation might be appealing, but you are still covered!
Power off the grid to most homes in the USA is seriously flawed in that it bears a lot of noise that would ruin the impact that any hi-end stereo should have on its user. If that user will not fix this problem at the source i.e. fix the power source & will rather fall into the trap of using various hyped power cords as a solution has a SERIOUS issue with problem solving 101! I shudder to think what criteria this person uses to select his/her electronics!!
Some of the people here are convinced of this line of reasoning thru their experience or from logical thinking of problem solving. Others will learn but the hard way by spending their hard earned $ on hype & having their skeptism turn in cynicism & still others will never learn!! As they say, it takes all sorts.....
Do not get me wrong - I'm not against power cords! I'm against power cords that are hyped to us users which have no technical merit of solving the cruddy electricity problem. Any manuf or retailer who suggests buying his/her power cord without ensuring that the user's power supply is clean enough to take advantage of the power cord is leading the user astray. This will lead to more & more cyncism from us users & will kill our hobby gradually.
|
I'll eat the mylar in my Martin-Logans when an article on the theoretical underpinnings of power cords appears in Science magazine. If the techonology of electro-magnetism wasn't already well understood we wouldn't be having this exchange over the internet. |
Claiming that science hasn't reached a point to reliable measure audio equipment is absurd. I really doubt you can find two amps that measure identically. That myth is from the anti-measurement crowd, usually people with an agenda to hype over-priced and under-performing audio equipment and accessories.
What no one will do however is take those measurements and claim how you will percieve them.
steve |
Nrchy...Science is not quite as primitive as you suppose. Don't be snowed by this string theory bs.
In particular it is very simple to measure whether two amps produce identical outputs. Simply feed the same input (a real musical waveform if that turns you on) to both amps (with level adjusted for gain difference) and make a voltage measurement, or oscilloscope observation across the two outputs. The difference voltage in units of millivolts can be compared with the output voltage in volts and expressed in units of dB. This would not be a very useful measurement for an amp designer, but it would give a user an idea of how well two amps compare... for example an inexpensive model vs an expensive one, or a modified vs stock one. It would not tell you which amp was better, just if there was any difference large enough to be audible. |
Corona is right on with his quote. The biggest problem I have with the measurement crowd is that science to too immature to know what it is measuring, much less to know how to measure it.
In many cases modern science is like dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants trying to proclaim their vast understanding, and vision.
We actually understand very little about electricity and what takes place within our humble equipment. We don't have to tools with which to measure, or the understanding of what we are measuring.
If two amps measure the same they should sound the same, since they don't sound the same, there is obviously something missing in our measuring system, or tool box!
It is not the fault of the gear that two similar amps sound different, or that two different PCs sound different. Don't blame the PC, blame the science, or the dwarf! If all else fails, blame the racoon. |
"The more I know about physics the more I'm drawn to metaphysics." -- Albert Einstein |
"When we compare what we know to what we don't know, we can truly say we know nothing",Albert Einstein. |
A more important question to push the boundaries on is why various components are immune to the colorations of power cords. That goes back to the question of power supply and transformer design raised earlier. |
I agree with Bombaywalla. Personally, I'd rather remain stagnant than pushing the metaphysical boundaries of power cord neurotica. |
Wow, my head is spinning! |
This attitude will guarantee stagnation. |
IMHO & in my limited experience, I found that MOST powercords on the market is pure, unadulterated Snake Oil!! This has been confirmed to me by various audiophile friends many of whom use inexpensive Chris VenHaus Flavour X power cords after having tried several other expensive power cords.
I know that my pre (especially) & my power amp are sensitive to power cords. Searching for a power cord that has no sonic signature of its own within a reasonable price has been a tough assignment for me. I cannot afford an Elrod or an Electraglide or a BMI or any such $1000+ power cord! I'm presently using the ESP Essence cord & I find that it doesn't degrade the sonics of my pre & power. This I can tell you confidently. Is it "improving" the sound? No it isn't! I feel that it has practically zero sonic signature of its own.
Any time I hear or read that a power improves the sound, I'm leary of the claim. I believe that power cords cannot improve the sound; they can only change the tone i.e. colour the sound. All those believing that power cords improve the sound are listening to some form of distortion or the other that they perceive as "improvement". During the novelty period, it sounds diff. from what they are used to & it is mistakenly perceived as an improvement. Extended & critical listening reveals the flaws in the power cord & you see it for sale on Audiogon!
Electronics & Electricity will always be based on Physics (aleast on this planet!) & so equipment in these 2 realms will always have to honour these physics laws. Any improvements will have to be measureable. I'm convinced that if it's not measureable then one hasn't made any improvements or lateral changes or one doesn't know how to measure.
The money you can spend to lay dedicated lines to your wall outlets & to clean up the electricity coming to your mains from the grid will go far, far more than any power cord can. A power cord cannot fix what is broken (i.e. cruddy electric power) because it is a passive device. If you have a problem with your power, fix it at the source - that big breaker box located in your garage/basement.
If the power is clean, an inexpensive DIY power cable (VenHaus or Jon Risch type) should do just fine.
In audio, 95% of the stuff is TOTAL trash! Shifting thru this c*** takes a life time!
IMHO. YMMV. |
Flex:
Is the one you are referring to?
"I think people basically *are* saying theoretical physics has nothing to do with great sound". I am not sure if he believes this or is saying that others do?
We believe it has everything to do with great sound that is why are so intrigued with "String Theory" because it is saying what we have experienced in the lab; there are no isolated events, all electrical phenomenon are interrelated.We are presently focusing on the relationship
between impedance and resonance. It does sounds strange! |
Look at the mess it has created.... like acoustics, speaker design, electronics, digital processing, recording, microphone design, networks, midi. I think I'll stay lost in the past if that's true.
A forum for the discussion of ideas. String theory, superconductors... on Audiogon ??
Corona, no one seriously expects you to offer scientific proof, least of all here. Reread Zaikesman's posts if you need to grasp the issue. Discussion, real discussion, is fine. |
Flex:
You are right there has been 80 years of "firmly published measurement and engineering theory";and look at the mess it has created.
Face it flex, you are a slave to the past. There are no words that will ever convince you of anything. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just the way you view the world.
I think you sometimes forget that is a forum for the exchange of ideas, demands of scientific proof are better served in another setting.
|
>Corona says:
If it tests good and sounds bad its bad"
In other words, you didn't know how to test what you were hearing
>Corona says:
"if it tests bad and sounds good its good.
In other words, you didn't know how to test what you were hearing
>Corona says:
"The truth is if we won the Nobel Prize for Physics you would then be saying: Physics theory has nothing to do with great sound. "
If you won the Nobel Prize, you would have gone through exactly the process I outlined. You would have published your work and proved to the satisfaction of others the correlations between sound and physical phenomena.
Obviously there are engineering, physics, and psychoacoustic phenomena behind what we hear. However demonstrating that something sounds one way or another is no proof of underlying physics. Like the majority of pc makers, you can sell your products based on sound, but if you are going to claim physical reasons that stand on any merit, you are going to have to provide evidence. Handwaving at theoretical physics is specious logic.
On white papers, there are about 80 years of work in audio that is firmly grounded in published measurement and engineering theory. |
Zaikesman:
I think you missed the point. |
Uh, I think Zaikesman just wrapped this thread up. |
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... |
Flex:
In my 45 years of audio I have seen an endless stream of proofs or White Papers that had nothing to do with the performance of the product; almost all were based on educated hype. There is an old saying in audio: If it tests good and sounds bad its bad; if it tests bad and sounds good its good. The truth is if we won the Nobel Prize for Physics you would then be saying: Physics theory has nothing to do with great sound.
S 23 Chang:
It took a long time to develop this technology. As you have stated, explaining it without giving away the farm is a challenge. Another problem, the explanation keeps moving. As we learn more about how it works the new understanding it invalidates part of the old explanation, I am sure you are familiar with this part of the learning curve. |
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.) |
Flex, if you can make a cable say like a $10,000 NBS black series IC, are you going to tell folks how you making it?
It can only be free if everyone else already knows how to do it.
The truth about patent protection is all BS. Anyone can tweak a bit from original design and call that their own discovery.
Stop attacking people as you should respect their own company secret. That is way a lot of company decide not to publish any white paper because of people like you.
If you really want to know then fork up the dough to buy one and get it over with it and enjoy/hate the product. |
Corona, your response is pure crap. You log onto a consumer website and claim a lot of preposterous physics - superconductors, string theory (what's next - astrophysics?) There is only one way, and there never will be any other way, to do physics theory, and that is by publication and peer review - put your results where other people can test them. Listening proves *absolutely nothing* about physics, except that you can be *hugely* misinterpreting your results.
Claiming a lot of unpublished, hidden, unscrutinizable, grandiose garp serves to take the audio field down in the eyes of every respectable audio scientist. It may serve your marketing purposes which seem to be just to get your name out there. If you want to advertize your power cords for what they are, do so, but leave physics out of it until/unless you offer proof.
"..slam a product without any understanding of the technology involved".. What technology have you offered? String theory? Superconductors? The word 'resonance' is not a technology. |
Corona, welcome to the "reality chatting" ( since no tv screen here.) The concept is hard to understand for some of the folks here because they never design the cable themselves. Sure, it is always easier to attack someone and anyone can do that. However, it is not always easy to find the science behind it ( We don't get hit by the falling apple under the apple tree everyday to dicover gravity.) |
Subaruguru:
You said it takes you 2 and 1/2 hours to build a power cable that should sell at $250.
That comes out to $100 per hour with no dealer to take his share and no overhead, and youre calling other people greedy!
Now let me guess, I bet you take some wire, put some insulation around it (call that resonance control) and attach it to a couple of connectors and declare it a power cord. That may work fine for power tools but it is not going to do much in terms of accelerated audio performance. We are not amateurs. We do not make a living by hiding behind words on a computer screen. We do in-house demonstrations, directly or through our dealers. We compete against the best of the best. With the introduction of our new designs, I can tell you with absolute assurance, we are light years ahead of the competition.
There are a number of people who are more than willing to slam a product without any understanding of the technology involved, have never experienced the performance and do not even know anyone who has! Yet these individuals are eager to express violent opposition based solely on their long accumulated assumptions. |
Right on, Hdm. Nice posts, Zaikes, but remember some Belden, like the 83000 series, is GREAT cable, at industrial prices. That's where the price/performance ratio is greatly in our favor. Antiresonant attributes are where my efforts lie in further improvements in PC design. Yet I continue to see marketing-driven pricing schemes unrelated to real materials and labor cost as a primary hindrance. These are 60Hz AC power cords, period. Even with the 2 1/2 hours labor it takes me to assemble one of my new anti-resonant designs, I can't see why a fair market can't exist for a manufacturer to sell direct under $200-$250....
Corona, you can go on and on about envelope-stretching or stringing dingleberries, but then choosing to name your PCs
semantically linked to a pedophile's 80's rock album's title strikes me not much in consonance with products of next-era R&D. Let's get real here. You want to sell PCs at high prices to the gearheads, naive, and hopeful on A'gon? Fine. Just please try to not splash too much goofy-science in your wake. It just further soils the landscape....
Phew. I didn't intend to jump on anyone when I hit the forums this bright and cold morning, but there it is. Sorry.
Happiest Holidays to all this week. |
In the search for decent power cords (I've heard substantial differences), I've restricted myself to the under $200 U.S. cords (new or used or DIY), but I sure wouldn't be keeping any cord, or any piece of equipment, for that matter, for its "looks and build quality" if I couldn't hear the difference between it and something that was a quarter of the price or came stock with the equipment. |
