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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
Unfortunately GK doesn't know the difference between a critical review and fan-boy literature and hence posts drivel like the positive-promotion article. You did once again spectacularly prove someone else's point though. You showed delkal was absolutely right.
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reducing that to an A/B/X test
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Question? In your humble opinion, what is the best Power Cord and what do you like about them from prices that range:
$50-$100 $200-300 $400-500 $600-$1000
The unfortunate situation is that once the cable hater crowd has already polluted an audio thread, it will be tough to get anybody chime in with recommendations on what you ask for. How can they? Do they like to be ridiculed by recommending anything other than stock power cords? I don't. But maybe someone is brave enough to step forward...
I don't listen to those poor souls. Sad that they were not allowed to play with others subject to misbehavior. There negative cry for attention is the demonstration of the lack of.
Carry on man, no body really is interested in their party of 1 antics lol.
P.S. Alright I will admit that a few comments have cracked me totally up lmao:)
While ideally the test would be double blind, that is not always a viable thing to do.
Quite so! Conducting a controlled test with the goal that it will be scientifically valid is a tricky business. It’s time-consuming, tedious and cumbersome, so not likely to be fun for most audiophiles. I’m sure that’s one reason such tests are uncommon in our community.
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.
Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t allow potential bias to creep into a test, and then excuse the bias by proclaiming that isn’t the "dominant" bias, whatever that is. The test you describe is a sighted test, and subject to whatever flaws such tests might include.
That’s especially so in this instance, where you’ve acknowledged that the tester will have to "lie" to the subject about whether he might be hearing the A or B component. The tester’s bias - or even his personality traits - can poison the test. For example, the tester may reveal a "tell" (as a poker player would call it) that could be even unconsciously detected by the test subject, thereby influencing his responses. And that’s why I said that your partially-sighted test has no advantage over a fully sighted test - bias can affect results either way.
If you want to conduct a scientific test, you have to control for as many variables as possible. This is science 101; there’s no disputing this basic stuff. I think it’s rather odd that some of those who clamor most loudly for scientific listening tests have such poor understanding of what’s involved. Perhaps that’s why they are so confounded that controlled tests are so rare: They think such testing is simple and straightforward, while nothing could be further from the truth.
Cleeds, You are a broken record. Prof and I have schooled you on this many times and clearly showed how you are wrong. You keep coming back with the same tired and wrong answers.
1) We are not trying to implement a study or test that applies to every case, i.e. whether JoeBlowCablesInc model 2112 is the worlds best cable. We are only, repeat Only trying to implement a study that either proves or disproves One persons claim, and under the conditions They make. Therefore, one only needs to repeat the conditions of their claim and use them (or who they designate) to prove or disprove their claim.
2) That you even attempt to argue that a blind test is not far superior to a sighted test removes any credibility you had or have. Your argument is akin to "Well even people who use parachutes sometimes die, so we should never use parachutes". That you repeatedly do this combined with your repeated attempts to refute (1) by describing something completely unrelated drops, at least in my mind, your credibility to 0.
Single blind testing is used regularly where tester bias is deemed to have overall limited impact on the results. You really need some new material as these tired wrong arguments are stale.
Single blind testing is used regularly where tester bias is deemed to have overall limited impact on the results.
What you’re saying is that your sighted test is better than other sighted tests. That’s just nonsense.
If you want to conduct a scientific test - of any sort - you need to eliminate as many potential sources of bias as possible. That’s a fundamental scientific principle, whether it suits your belief system or not.
What I am saying is that a blind test is not a sighted test and that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to even claim that.
Anyone who has any experience running tests with subjective results has used single blind testing as well as double blind testing depending on the rigour required for the test and the potential bias of the tester. To say that a single blind test equates to a sited test is an ignorant position not based in facts, or born from experience.
So a double blind test is better than a single blind test? How about a blind test with just one eye open? Does it count as blind test? What if it’s sighted test but you really squint very hard to the point you are kinda unsighted and everything is very blurry? It should count as unsighted I believe. Or single blind. Basically if both eyes are closed, it double blind, if one eye is closed is single blind. And if you are squinting is 1/2 blind.
Another scenario is like when you cheat a little bit. Like you move the black clothe just a little that you can glance. How is that called?
"The tester’s bias - or even his personality traits - can poison the test."
I think you are taking this whole thing a little too serious.
Whole thing with double vs. single blind test is also a little exagerrated. I may be wrong, but it seems you extrapolate some, not even all, clinical medical research practice and apply it to something that does not require that particular level of stringency.
True, double blind testing will practically always be easier to defend than single blind testing, but in this case it is just for argument’s sake and not for any real world application.
As far as science 101 goes, thousands of mice die daily during tests and experiments that are not blinded at all, not to humans at least, and results are considered valid and used for whatever purpose intended. Ok, mice do not know much about it so you could say it is single blinded.
Subtle cues during some cable swapping experiment could happen, but it is expected that a person doing swapping would be an adult with at least some self-control. I guess you could call it bias, but it should be negligible. What is swapper going to do? Wink at the listener when installing a certain cable he wants to win? Clear her/his throat at that time?
Again, double blind testing may be ideal but it also may not be necessary.
In cable swapping test, single blinded with a reasonably behaving swapper may be all you need. Fully sighted may not be enough, if you are really trying to be scientific.
One irony for cable tests, blind tests or whatever, is that new cables almost always sound quite bad relatively speaking, so what purpose would testing new cables serve? The other irony is perhaps more subtle, especially for you new guys, but unplugging a cable destroys the delicate electrical mechanical interface where the cable is connected. It takes at least a day or two to establish or restore that delicate connection once the cable is plugged in. Same for power cords. Conclusion, all (rpt all) cable tests are bogus unless you are willing to be extremely patient. Most cable swappers are like bulls in a china shop. As Bob Dylan says at the end of his records, good luck to everyone!
Of course the big chicken 🐔 in the room is wire directionality. Why would anyone test cables that are in the wrong direction? Hel-loo!
“Because it’s what I choose to believe.” - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in Prometheus
I knew that would get a rise out of you, nubbins. As soon as I wrote it. It’s Pavlovian! 🐶 It’s also ESP. By the way, I can’t help noticing your grammar and spelling are kind of falling apart recently. Are you OK? Are you going the way of Lizzie? I hope not.
Agreed! They are two different things. In a true blind test, neither those conducting the test nor the subject of the test know exactly what is under evaluation at any given moment.
But if anyone involved in the test actually knows what is under evaluation at any given time - and they know this because they can "see" - then it isn’t a true proper blinded test:
blind/blīnd/adjective ...
1. unable to see because of injury, disease, or a congenital condition."he was blind in one eye" ... Opposite: sighted ...
2. lacking perception, awareness, or discernment.
Anyone who has any experience running tests with subjective results has used single blind testing ...
I don’t know whether that claim is true or not, but you make a fair point. The results of a "single blind" test are subjective, not objective, because the test doesn’t even try to control for all the known variables. That doesn’t mean the test has no value, so there’s no need for you to feel such hurt over this. But its value is limited to about the same extent as other sighted tests. Perhaps that limitation is not nearly so severe as some believe.
It’s confounding to me why you refuse to acknowledge the difference between "blind" and "sighted." Perhaps you simply seek to continue argumentation.
So it appears there is no way to set up a "scientific" test test that will make everyone happy audiophiles will be debating this for the rest of time............. But what about doing something simpler? Just prove to yourself which cable is best for your system (blinded). Have a friend swap the cables for you and you listen and decide what the differences are. If there is an audible change it should be obvious without you having to look at your friends face to try and cheat and get a clue. It doesn’t even have to give a statistically significant outcome. If you tend to like one over the other that is the cable to use.
This test would be best if you have some different demo cables to pick from. After you already spent big bucks on a cable it will be more risky. Its not fun to find out you like a cheaper cable but like everyone said cables are system dependent. There is no reason a cheaper cable might not sound better. Also, this test will not prove anything to others, It will just give you more confidence that you picked the best cable for your system. Regardless of cost, how fancy and thick it looks, or biased audio reviews.
... it appears there is no way to set up a "scientific" test test that will make everyone happy ...
I don’t think that’s true. The protocols for a controlled, scientific, double-blind listening test have already been established. They can be cumbersome, so some seek a shortcut to the protocols, which is fine, of course. The only issue is when they also proclaim that their compromised test is as valid as a properly controlled test. That’s a truly odd claim, but there are only one or two people here asserting it.
What is subject to debate is the actual value of a proper
controlled, scientific, double-blind listening test. That debate will continue as long as audiophiles inhabit the planet.
... what about doing something simpler? Just prove to yourself which cable is best for your system (blinded). Have a friend swap the cables for you and you listen and decide ... If you tend to like one over the other that is the cable to use.
I think that’s exactly what some audiophiles do. Some make it even simpler and omit the blind cable swap altogether.
Unfortunately delkal, people are arguing from a position lacking knowledge and I have to wonder what agenda they have?
Sighted Test: The subjective evaluator 100% knows that they are evaluating.
Single Blind Test: (This is a blind test). The subjective evaluator has no direct knowledge of what is being tested. The tester may accidentally or on purpose give clues to the subjective evaluator. This test method is used where the potential for bias is low, or the expectation of bias is low by those viewing the results. This is used day in / day out in scientific testing as most of the time, there is no desire to introduce bias and the results are not life/money critical. For that reason, having your friend administer the test for cables, would be suitable assuming they have no skin in the game for the outcome. Similarly, having a supplier administer it would be a no-no as the potential for bias is too high, and the results would be questioned due to that potential for bias.
Double Blind: Neither the subjective evaluator nor the person administering the test knows what is being tested, therefore there is no way for clues to be passed to the subjective evaluator. The almost gold standard of subjective evaluation.
Triple Blind: In addition to the double blind, all test data is coded so that results cannot be linked to a particular item under test during the data processing and analysis stage.
... and again, if you are only proving or disproving a single narrow claim, you don't need multiple subjects nor a complex protocol.
I hate to judge too harshly but it seems a lot easier to satisfy the Naysayers as to what constitutes a “scientifically controlled test.” The reason I say that is because, by their own words, naysayers almost always have the least firm grip on what all the variables are. Not to mention anyone with bad intent can make the test impossible to pass. Thus, Naysayers are LEAST able to control all the variables. Make sense?
Every time I come back to this thread I’m reminded of something primordial going on. It’s about dominance. Chest pounding, bush shaking dominance.
See me. Listen to me. Obey me. It’s all very authoritarian.
One can almost take the dialogue here and insert it as a closed caption on the first act of 2001, A Space Odyssey. The monolith can be the sound system and the proto-humans the debaters (too kind a word) as they fight over what they heard.
Truthful and spiritual description for me...But I must admit sometimes to be more akin to some of the apes than to some others...My bad indeed... My best Nonoise...
My best friend once was one of the developers of the intelligent computer at U. of Illinois Urbana upon which HAL-9000 is based. HAL-9000 of course was really in charge of the mission. Open the pod bay doors, Hal! 🧑🏻🚀 🤗
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
