The one cord I would get if I had the money AND if I still used power cords would be the AudioQuest Hurricane, you know the one that respects the inherent directionality of wire, the own that goes for around $4,000. Why? I’ve heard things. People talk. Oops a-daisy! The Price Range wasn’t wide enough.
The Truth About Power Cords and there "Real" Price to Performance
This is a journey through real life experiences from you to everyone that cares to educate themselves. I must admit that I was not a believer in power cords and how they affect sound in your system. I from the camp that believed that the speaker provided 75% of the sound signature then your source then components but never the power cord. Until that magic day I along with another highly acclaimed AudioGoner who I will keep anatomist ran through a few cables in quite a few different systems and was "WOWED" at what I heard. That being said cable I know that I am not the only believer and that is why there are so many power cord/cable companies out there that range from $50 to 20-30 thousand dollars and above. So I like most of you have to scratch my head and ask where do I begin what brand and product and what should i really pay for it?
The purpose of this discussion to get some honest feed back on Price to Performance from you the end user to us here in the community.
Please fire away!
The purpose of this discussion to get some honest feed back on Price to Performance from you the end user to us here in the community.
Please fire away!
472 responses Add your response
I heard two blind power cord demonstrations, where the two cords were both of similar price, and it was fairly easy to distinguish the cords in both cases, but whether or not one was better might be system and taste specific. In one of those bind auditions, I thought that a power cord by Basis Audio was clearly better (can't remember what it was competing with) because the sound was more dynamic and lively sounding. But, when I tried the cable in my own system, it sounded a bit too hard and brittle. It is not necessarily a comparison between different price components; it is a matter of what sounds right. It also matters what component is being powered; I've tried different cords on some components where I've really not heard a difference. As a rough rule, tube gear, particularly linestages, seem to be somewhat insensitive to changes in the power cord. I don't think it is necessarily a matter of how much power the component draws either; I've heard differences with DACs that cannot be drawing that much power. |
atdavid Hardware store IEC cords are often 18awg, maybe 16awg, while good, but not very expensive shielded cords targeted at instrumentation are $10's of dollars, not hundreds. >>>>>That’s gold, Jerry, gold! Question to atdavid, do you have a logical fallacy generator on your computer or do you make these things up yourself? |
11-25-2019 3:43pmmahgister,I am perfectly ok with your post...I understand your concern and perhaps,i forget that this thread is about comparing costlier cables , then these context must appeal to some very rigourus testing for sure...I apologize if my posts where beside the subject .... My point is only motivated by my experience with my old hears but experimented ears, very ordinary but educated hearing, and the evidence that my audiophile journey gives me... |
larryi, I have been to many such demonstrations, and not once, has the demonstration ever been blind. In fact, what is being demonstrated is clearly indicated, usually accompanied by not so subtle hints at what the sonic differences are. If a blind test is a more significant step up from a sited test, then doing that is one significant step down from even a blind test as you have both the presenter begging the answer, and peer pressure on top. Hardware store IEC cords are often 18awg, maybe 16awg, while good, but not very expensive shielded cords targeted at instrumentation are $10's of dollars, not hundreds. |
I've heard a few power cord demonstrations and it is really easy to hear the difference between the hardware store IEC cords and even modestly priced specialized power cords. I've only heard a few comparisons within a brand line between expensive and ultra expensive cords, and the only one where I was quite impressed with the ultra-expensive cord was a NBS demonstration involing their Black Label cords. The Black Label sounded considerably more dynamic, and I liked that result in the particular system used for the demonstration, but, I have no idea if that particular effect comes with negative consequences in a different system (it is all about tuning/compatibility). The most recent demonstration I heard was one done by the Isotek people. They demonstrated a $400 cord against the hardware store cords, then, using their chord, they added in their various power conditioning boxes. I ended up buying two Isotek conditioners which come with this cord, and upgraded the power cord feeding one conditioner with their more expensive power cord. Decent power cords and conditioning make a substantial difference. One of the most impressive demonstrations I've heard involved a comprehensive system for grounding equipment. It is the system developed by Nordost. The before and after sound employing the grounding scheme was quite impressive. I was particularly surprised because I generally don't like Nordost interconnects and power cables. |
@delkal I by no means am knocking your claim, I just thought that you might be on to something. I have been in blind test group listening sessions were we have listen to each of our personal test tracks as a guide and played them over and over 3 times to see if each of us agreed on our overall assessment of the signature. |
@mahlman Hey man, have you looked in the mirror lately? "Malman, Too funny and I love some of the trolling here. In the memory of "insearchofprat" "Malman, do I look like I care what you think? 🙄 Your post is not only a drive-by shooting but it’s a hijacking. You can’t even stay on topic. "Malman, Blind testing is garlic and wooden stakes to Vampires. "Malman, By the way I found a cooker at Costco I think will work but I have a question. Should I use peanut or sunflower oil? I figure a light all natural oil will help the transients be much better and allow for a much more transparent sound signal. "Malman, " LMAO! Uh, no apparently you haven’t, or your auditory memory failed you miserably in those assessments. "Malman, You can tag along on theannual pilgrimage to Arkansas to pay your respects. |
I hope I’m not being to harsh here but it certainly appears atdavid STILL doesn’t know the difference between evidence and proof. Juror #3 from 12 Angry Men: But you can’t prove it!! 😡 How do we discern reality? We observe it. Empirical evidence is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. Hel-loo! |
delkal But my personal experiences are just anecdotal. Someone will always say my system isn’t revealing enough or I didn’t know what to listen for (or I am just ignorant). So that is why I keep asking.........why can’t find I any reliable sources on the internet where someone can repeatedly tell a difference when listening blinded? Or why can’t the people who claim a cable "instantly transformed their system" do the same test, do it blinded with someone else switching it, and tell us about it? This should have been proven long ago. >>>>Good questions! Who the hell knows? That’s just the way it goes sometimes. |
I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears none of the $50 power cord folks have run across any of the great many reviews of the AudioQuest Hurricane Power Cord, or other Storm series power cords, mostly on audio forums and Facebook and right here on Audiogon. Could all those reviews be paid advertisements? A coincidence? A global conspiracy? A prank? Or is it evidence that there is in fact life after $50? Positive Feedback review, trigger warning ⚠️ https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/audioquest-storm-series-and-niagara-ac-power-... “I looked for evidence but I was unable to find any.” - Naysayers’ lament |
"Wow, this has been an excellent thread thus far. I never know where
things are headed when I post a thread, its like being blindfolded on a
roller coaster ride! I am thankful to all of you who have contributed as
we all can always learn no matter how large or small your system is or
how much you know or think you know there is always someone who knows
more than you! Now as far as the "Kamikaze’s"
out there dive bombing with snide remarks and negativity please be more
respectful to the group some of us are here to learn. Thanks again to all. Cheers! " U Go BLU!! Pot stirring with flair. Or is that flare? |
Too funny and I love some of the trolling here. In the memory of "insearchofprat" we now have BluMartini and his buddy anatomist here live discussing yet another one of audios money making schemes and wealth transfer scams. The deliberate mis-spellings are hilarious. It is theater of the absurd in every way and Monty Python would be hard pressed to best some of these threads. Troll on brother you do serve to reveal the preposterous nature of some of the self anointed golden ear audiophile silliness. |
I have been an Audiophile for over 40 years and owned a audio store. i will say without question cables are by far the highest profit margin ,speaking of high end cables ,that being said a good power cord brings much more detail and dynamics to the audio chain . i took a $500 power cord ,and a $900 one one on my digital front end ,and one on the integrated amp, then switched them , the better power cord made the power amp noticeably better at the output , on the ampsection. that being said , two top power cords payed dividends.i have found some smaller boutique companies can compete pretty well. The $1k AQ is fantastic ,but Triode Audiolabs for example for $500 makes a excellent power cord. Or you can buy top Furutech connectors ,and buy bulk reference cable$50-$400 per ft that give you = to 3x more value per dollar spent. These are just an example of possibilities. |
Blumartini I have to say that is a tough one! A blind test 10 times to see what percentage would be that can determine one cable from the other at the above the $50.00 mark? Is your point that $50.00 plus cable will be a negligible or not even at best to not distinguishable by 50% of the listeners? Am not a cable denier when it comes to ultracheap cables (of any type) and I gave an arbitrary $50 cutoff as a guide to what I think ultracheap is. If someone else’s definition is $100-200 then I won’t argue about it. But if you think your system needs $1000+ cables for it to sound good forget about it! I did my own blind tests comparing a throw away interconnect you get for free with my first DIY interconnect. Had a friend toggle between the two and I could hear a subtle difference. They could too. Then I later tried other more expensive commercial and DIY designs and I thought I could hear a difference at first, but when someone else switched them and I didn’t know which I was listening too and I was just guessing. So I do believe there is a line you cross where you get an audible difference but that line is only on the extreme low end. But my personal experiences are just anecdotal. Someone will always say my system isn’t revealing enough or I didn’t know what to listen for (or I am just ignorant). So that is why I keep asking.........why can’t find I any reliable sources on the internet where someone can repeatedly tell a difference when listening blinded? Or why can’t the people who claim a cable "instantly transformed their system" do the same test, do it blinded with someone else switching it, and tell us about it? This should have been proven long ago. |
@delkal I have to say that is a tough one! A blind test 10 times to see what percentage would be that can determine one cable from the other at the above the $50.00 mark? Is your point that $50.00 plus cable will be a negligible or not even at best to not distinguishable by 50% of the listeners? |
I tried something like that although not about power cords. It was boring. In any case, difference was, if anything, small. In those moments we felt there was a difference, it was unclear if it was for better or worse. Waste of time. If you need to do the test, the difference is negligible. If, in a relatively decent system, your jaw drops with some cord change, or similar minor maneuvre, you'd better enjoy it as long as you can. The magic will go away with next cord available. If you think it was not a minor maneuvre, you just learned you are very impressionable. |
There is too much scientific and controlled double blind study talk here (and I am a scientist). This should be simple. Show me some validated examples where someone can reliably pick between 2 cables costing over $50 (blinded, when someone else changes them) and they didn't know which one was playing. Thats all. Double blind, single blind, AB, ABX, Good change, bad change, Anything! It could even be on their personal system in their home. And to make it easy lets say they can notice a difference over 85% of the time for 10 tries. Not 2 out of 3. And not barely over 50% for 10. There should be dozens if not thousands of these examples on the internet. How about at least one? It should be easy to find. All of the people who invested big bucks on their Uber-expensive bragging rights cables should be referencing it all of the time. For some reason I can not find ANY examples. |
marqmike We all have bias’s. That’s why we like things a little different from each other. That is ok isn’t it. Of course. Have you actually seen anyone saying otherwise? (Certainly not me). The type of "bias" I have referenced are things like sighted bias, the type of things it’s reasonable to control for, when trying to investigate claims about audibility. This is different from the biases that influence what we like, in our everyday enjoyment of the hobby. I’m full of those biases, like you, and happily embrace it. What is a sad is some here don’t want to discuss a subject, but rather dig their feet in and make fun of or argue their position. In other words, even though a range of opinions exist among audiophiles, apparently you only want to hear from one type of opinion - the one that falls in line with a dogma that AC cables all sound different? Do you really think keeping in an ideological bubble is that great an idea? When people in forums like this start the type of complaint "it’s sad that..." it typically plays out as "it’s sad that I have to look at anyone’s opinion that significantly differs from my own. Especially if they provide reasons/arguments justifying their opinion." How about this: How about we audiophiles actually grow thicker skins, and not consider alternative viewpoints - say, someone else who isn’t so sure as you are about the claims made for cables - as some existential threat to your enjoyment of hi end audio. Other people have different viewpoints. Relax. No biggie. |
prof To take a hypothetical example, if a cable manufacturer claims they have reduced the presence of a distortion that occurs in the frequency of 25kHz which therefore produces a "better sounding cable," that’s a claim that does not require all this personal musical history mumbo jumbo to investigate. Right off the bat there is reason to be skeptical, given the well known *general* limits to human hearing. So right off the bat it would make sense to ask for evidence we can even HEAR the problem being claimed. >>>>That’s weird. I don’t recall any cable manufacturer ever making that claim. Did you just make that up? I suspect you might be over thinking it. 😛 |
We all have bias's. That's why we like things a little different from each other. That is ok isn't it. What is a sad is some here don't want to discuss a subject, but rather dig their feet in and make fun of or argue their position. Sad that so many of us older ones can't seem to enjoy one anothers input whether we agree or not, and help each other out and just have a nice productive discussion that leads to enjoying our hobby more. My listening to music is not a life or death thingee. I enjoy it and it is going to stay that way even though I am not an industry insider, or know anything about my equipment. I do appreciate the insider's that contribute something positive to this place. But the old saying(it's not old, I am just now making this up)'I would rather enjoy some ice cream with my dog than have a steak dinner with a crude know it all. |
mahgister, There is some objective collective truth in sound perception, but musical perception is more complex than just sound perception and taking into account the different genetic potential of each one of us and our own different individual listening history, it is impossible and illusory to reduce this individual history to some objective collective laws of hearing... I find your writing on these subjects to be unclear as you seem to conflate separate issues: that of musical appreciate, or personal reaction to music, vs the question of the actual *audibility* of any particular technical claim. To take a hypothetical example, if a cable manufacturer claims they have reduced the presence of a distortion that occurs in the frequency of 25kHz which therefore produces a "better sounding cable," that's a claim that does not require all this personal musical history mumbo jumbo to investigate. Right off the bat there is reason to be skeptical, given the well known *general* limits to human hearing. So right off the bat it would make sense to ask for evidence we can even HEAR the problem being claimed. You could claim all you want to hear above 20kHz, but no appeal to your musical history will suffice to wave away a hearing test that shows you can not, in fact, reliably detect the presence of anything above 18kHz.(And such tests are of course done blind, so you are not given visual cue, or information, as to when the tones are playing...reducing those variables to concentrate only on what you are actually detecting via your hearing). The same goes for the fundamental question "Does cable A actually 'sound' delectably different from cable B?" So, take a possible blind test one could conduct between an audiophile AC cable and a standard "came with the device" audio cable. Let's say we want to investigate the AUDIBILITY (forget preference...lets first establish if A and B are even delectably different!) of an audiophile cable on a DAC. And let's say this audiophile cable - the "audiophileWOW cable" was purported by others to obviously improve the sound of a well known DAC. Maybe you have even "heard" it do exactly that, with that DAC. How to test this more rigorously? (*caveat: a double-blind set up would be even better, but even a single-blind test goes far further to reducing variables than the average "stick it in my system and listen" version used to anecdotally vet claims in hi-end audio). You could have two samples of the same DAC, both outputting to a switcher (pre-amp, whatever), so you can switch between the signal coming out of either DAC. First you do a blind test (e.g. someone else switching in a way you, the subject, can not know which DAC you are hearing), to first determine if you can reliably detect any difference between the two DAC units (again, the same DAC model), using this switching method. Presuming you can not, the inference being they sound alike to you as one would expect, you can move on to introducing the audiophile AC cable in the test. Just have one DAC unit using the supplied AC cable it came with, the other is now using the audiophileWOW AC cable. Now, repeat that same blind test. Can you even DETECT a difference between them to a statistically reliable degree? If not, if the results mirror a similar randomness as when they each had the same stock AC cable, then you've failed to show any positive correlation of sonic changes brought to the table by the audiophileWOW AC cable. Which is suggests that you really can't hear a difference. (Do enough of these tests, and you can establish ever more confidence that you can not hear a difference. Do it with enough people, and you gain ever more confidence that there is no audible contribution made by the audiophileWOW cable. None of this has to do with "personal musical history," it's about investigating the question of audibility, just like we do with hearing tests. But once components are established to actually sound different, then preference can play a plausible role, and it makes sense to talk about "which sonic presentation you like more" and for what reasons, how it effects your reaction to the music, etc.
Which is a strawman. No one suggests that we simply reduce music listening to A/B/X tests. It's just a more concise tool for investigating whether sonic differences are detectable or not. It can be expanded to preference-testing, if you like. But it's just conflating issues to mix up all this "personal musical history" stuff with a much narrower goal.You are making the typical audiophile exception for your hobby, as if the lessons of science, useful in most other areas, just don't apply to audio.It's special pleading. |
@blumartini Thanks for being a good sport. I’m not looking to tear down the conversation you actually want to have.It’s just that occasionally I think it’s good to hear from the variety of voices among audiophiles, which includes audiophiles who are more skeptical of cable claims, and cautious about relying on pure personal anecdote to settle controversial technical claims. Carry on... Cheers. |
And most people take that same TV set home, complete with the awful settings in the store, set it up in their house, and then leave it in cartoon mode till it eventually dies, never knowing how much better the image could be especially for movies. I have shown many friends how much better their TV can look. I also have friends and acquaintances who wouldn’t think twice about paying a few hundred dollars for a professional calibration on their TVs or projectors, I did a lot of research, and fortunately reviews on televisions include pretty good performance measurements. Then I hit stores (Blueray in hand) and get the remote so I can change/adjust to suitable settings, then I look for characteristics in the images I like / dislike, and I won’t do it in the bright lights of the "field" at a BestBuy. While there is variability from "perfect" in televisions, for the most part, at least now, it is becoming less and less of a subjective evaluation as objective measurements tell a lot more of the story than they ever will with speakers. ... and this is an audiophile forum, not a Sonos forum. |
geoffkait18,479 posts11-25-2019 2:43pmHow do you buy a TV? Blind test of course ;-) |
I don’t know if it qualifies for super human hearing but I can hear a mouse fart from 20 feet and yes, I passed a scientifically controlled double blind test. No, wait, it was actually only three blind mice. OK, let’s get this straight. Am I attacking those who think controlled blind tests are important or valid. Yes. And I think it’s funny. And I’m tired of pretending it’s not. Comedy is subjective, Isn’t that what they say? All of you people, the system that knows so much, you decide what’s right or wrong. The same way that you decide what’s funny or not. 🤗 |
atdavid534 posts11-25-2019 2:06pmYou own speakers, correct? How did you buy your speakers? Did you go to a dealer and asked them to do a quick ABX test for you? Provided that same dealer had all the speakers you wanted to test, AND, the dealer was willing to let you do a "scientifically controlled" ABX test (good luck with that). Or did you order twenty speakers for deliver in your home, did the ABX test in all of them, then you returned the nineteen losing ones? I am really curious to find out how you selected your current speakers (provided that you own speakers that is of course). Thank you |
This is one thing to eliminate negative bias, that disrupt the process of listening...In that we are on the same page.... All of us wanted to eliminate snake oil or negative illusions...Nobody is against tests... But it is another thing to negate the role of positive bias in an audio individual history, and reduce that to deception only....Biases are not reducible to be only preferences, because preference is only one of the final conscious products of a long personal complex history of listening processes and this personal history is an objective fact not reducible to be only a temporary negative single illusion or a singular preference only that must be eliminate at all costs ... Biases are like iceberg surfacing tops, you can eliminate what you see: one of the surfacing tops , not the iceberg... Because the iceberg is the listening process in itself constructing in the waters... |
When you have no idea what you are listening to, then you remove all bias w.r.t. that product you are evaluating. I may not be sure, but some of what you have alluded to as bias in your last post, I think many would call preference. That is much different from removing knowledge of changes and evaluating with nothing but our ears. I can't think of any other pursuit where a group of people fight so feverishly to maintain their ability to be bias influenced in the outcome. Anyone who thinks they will not be biased by knowing the device being tested/evaluated is, frankly, delusional. I am sorry to be harsh, but no one is immune to it. I don't understand why people keep insisting that they are. |
these guys who think they have superhuman hearing and that they alone , and their close-knit group are so superhuman that they are immune to bias that afflicts pretty much 100% of the populationIt is a dialogue of the deaf...Nobody has ever argued to own superhuman hearings...But attributing that hability to someone and attacking him after that for being so is an interesting tactic indeed... All of us have accumulated in a long self educating listening history, an additive number of creative and negative bias...This is not only normal, this is impossible to erase completely all our bias, there is no absolutely objective listening without bias at all...This is a fiction...We can become conscious of some of our bias for sure...And that is science... This is not superhuman hearing...I only wanted to point this out, for making things discussed clearer and not succumb to dialogue without compromising and without listening to each other... |
I am really starting to detest it, these guys who think they have superhuman hearing and that they alone , and their close-knit group are so superhuman that they are immune to bias that afflicts pretty much 100% of the population. They post on virtually every audio forum they can, their superhuman hearing and total absence of bias .... thyname475 posts11-25-2019 1:27pm |
This is such a grossly inaccurate statement as to call it bubkiss. While ideally the test would be double blind, that is not always a viable thing to do. There are two biases, subject bias and observation bias. Single blind removes subject bias, which is usually the dominant bias. While double blind is the "gold standard", single bias is still used as it eliminate subject bias, and provides significantly more statistically relevant results. To suggest this is no more valuable than sighted tests shows a gross ignorance w.r.t. this type of testing. cleeds2,587 posts11-25-2019 12:46pmOne just needs a friend that switches cables (or lies and tells you that he did), so you don’t know what you are listening to. No huge study design, no exhaustive testing procedures, and the perfect testing system and environment .. your system, your room.What you describe isn’t double-blind and has no control for the tester’s bias. So the results would be essentially useless, and certainly not scientific.Anyone who tells you there is no value in doing a test this way is lying to you.There’s no more value to the test you described than there is to the sort of fully sighted tests that you repeatedly assail so passionately. |
I am beginning to question the very concept of the ABX test. Is it a real thing? Before you get upset and slam your keyboard (yes, I am talking to you the mighty keyboard-warrior), this is just a joke, but a tongue-in-chick joke nonetheless... Isn't the "ABX test" something that the "slayers of snake oil" throw in your face every time someone shares his / her experience of anything in audio making a difference? More often than not, without even doing any such tests themselves. It's beginning to look like it. To the point of me starting to detest is, as only those guys use it, in every audio forum they can find. |
OK, I’ll be the first one to bring it up. There’s no such thing as a “scientifically controlled test,” at least for anything audio related, because nobody can control all the variables involved. There’s no MIL-STD for controlled test, even AES doesn’t have a protocol for Controlled Blind Testing. The Amazing Randi had a protocol for controlled blind testing calculated so nobody could pass. Geez, nobody even know what all the variables are. But if you want to pretend test, be my guest! Hey, that rhymes! 🤗 |
Cleeds I’ve participated in a few scientifically controlled listening tests. The trials were conducted by real researchers, not self-appointed audio forum experts. They were tedious - something the organizers cautioned about at the start of the undertaking - and it explains why not all of the subjects who started the test were willing to complete them. Proper, scientifically-controlled listening tests are a time-consuming, laborious undertaking for pretty much everyone involved. Those who claim such tests are simple, fun and easy to conduct have obviously never been responsible for any such test. Care to share the results of the test? |
atdavid I am sure it is not just me that questions the agenda of someone that actively tries to suppress people learning.I don’t see any indication that anyone here "tries to suppress" learning. That’s just a silly claim. In fact, there are many users who visit here regularly and share their experiences along with asking questions and responding to the questions of others. So there seems to be quite an appetite for learning here, notwithstanding the noisy minority that thinks it has all the answers. One doesn’t need to do "tedious" testing processes in ones own home.Exactly. One can simply listen for pleasure, and make observations accordingly. One just needs a friend that switches cables (or lies and tells you that he did), so you don’t know what you are listening to. No huge study design, no exhaustive testing procedures, and the perfect testing system and environment .. your system, your room.What you describe isn’t double-blind and has no control for the tester’s bias. So the results would be essentially useless, and certainly not scientific. Anyone who tells you there is no value in doing a test this way is lying to you.There’s no more value to the test you described than there is to the sort of fully sighted tests that you repeatedly assail so passionately. I’ve participated in a few scientifically controlled listening tests. The trials were conducted by real researchers, not self-appointed audio forum experts. They were tedious - something the organizers cautioned about at the start of the undertaking - and it explains why not all of the subjects who started the test were willing to complete them. Proper, scientifically-controlled listening tests are a time-consuming, laborious undertaking for pretty much everyone involved. Those who claim such tests are simple, fun and easy to conduct have obviously never been responsible for any such test. |
Probably the #1 lesson that an audiophile can learn is that they are susceptible to bias.There is a difference between entertaining illusion, and selling snake oil, and being in a conscious audiophile history of articulate evolutive bias toward this goal: being more happy with our own listening experience ...Most audiophiles exist precisely with this" label name" because they are in a search history, and not in a so-called mission to eliminate all bias, but only the disruptive one for their own history, not the creative one, and this occur in their own personal history of cumulative articulated bias ...We always listen with our bias, but they are the good one and the bad one... "Listening without bias" is not only impossible, this is the most difficult illusion to erase, a bad one indeed...And this illusion is not only the disease of "audiophile", but of " scientist" also... By the way you speak like if being an audiophile was a tare or a disease of the mind, most audiophile are conscious that they are susceptible of bias, being audiophile is precisely that, cultivating some bias, eliminating some bias...It is an history or a life...Not a piece of engineering... Most audiophile want to learn, but no audiophile will erase his own personal history of listening, and exchange that for an "illumination" by some " scientist" ...We must be respectful of facts and persons... By the way all people vote for the virtue, and all are in favor of tests , blind one also, to eliminating blatent snake oil products, and that goes without saying...This is one thing, but it is another one to attack audiophile personal bias history, and calling that an" illusion".... All illusions are not the same, a rainbow is not a cable in the night perceived to be a serpent...In the kingdom of illusions there is the creative one and the disruptive one... |
