Why Power Cables Affect Sound

Prof,

Yes, you have. They sound like they'd fit in here, and their views would be appreciated.

nonoise,

Happy to answer your question.

My coworkers have a variety of viewpoints on audio. Some are what I might characterize as "hard nosed engineer" types and others are audiophiles - and somewhat subjectivist - in their spare time. (E.g. they wouldn’t use a tube amp for their working environment, but enjoy that sound in their home system).

In the pro side, generally speaking, there is little given to the whole audiophile boutique cabling idea. For the most part, "pro grade" cabling is conscripted, along the likes of Canare, Belden etc. (In fact, some studios incorporate their own cable construction...using Canare, Belden as raw material).

When it comes to our off-time, I’ve known sound mixers and fellow sound editors who owned Quads, Apogees, and a variety of other audiophile favorites. Sometimes tube amps, that kind of thing. Usually the cabling may be what they could get from work. But there are also some who have bought some "audiophile grade cables" - though I don’t remember anything "crazy" in terms of really high priced cables in someone’s system who works in the business. (Again, only speaking from those I know).

I’ve worked in and been to various music mixing houses where differing views are to be found - often there is a bit of an attitude that the audiophile market is a bit nuts (in fact, at a work dinner last night, a fellow sound professional was expressing just that sentiment to me). But sometimes there’s a studio where the owner or engineers are more "tweaky." Though, I admit, I can not give you the name of the cables they may have used, if indeed they were beyond the normal pro cables.

So I would say the *general* picture (surely there are exceptions) from those who work in pro sound seems to entail much less worrying about, and desire for, "high end" cabling beyond choosing the right pro cable with the appropriate properties for the job.


My own cables have been all over the map. From those I had made at work. To earlier boutique cables I purchased as a newbie audiophile. To a whole bunch of loaned and borrowed cables from contacts and audiophile friends (e.g. right now I have a pair of Nordost interconnects I’ve borrowed, simply because I need another pair of interconnects for a while).

I hope I’ve answered your question.

Prof,

You never answered a question I asked you quite some time ago. It went something like: What do your co-workers think about cables? If I remember correctly, you work in the recording industry so your peers are just as into audio as the rest of us. Surely, conversations abound on all manner of topics pertaining to audio. How do they feel about cables and what do they use in their systems at home? 

Add to that their views on placebo while your at it.

All the best,
Nonoise

Elizabeth wrote:
I know it is annoying to listen to the drivel they spout.

Again...the emotion. This tendency to insult. Why is this such a feature of those who are so wedded to the most subjective side of the hobby? They just can’t seem to stand the idea they could be wrong.


Jeeze. I have no problem whatsoever with accepting I may be wrong.As I stated early on, I’m open to the possibility AC cables can change the sound of an audio system.


And, btw, if I ever enter a cable thread it is almost exclusively those threads in which the thread invites differing opinions, or which is explicitly concerned with the cable controversies (e.g. threads asking things like "DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?" etc.)

Just scroll through the forum and you will see I have not "barged in" to the endless threads discussing opinions on various power, speaker cables, and all the rest. I’m not looking to do so.

But in the *occasional thread* where the conversation naturally draws different perspectives, I will bring my own perspective, thank you very much.

Now, maybe some would rather circle the wagons around their own narrow point of view: "All cables make a sonic difference, and no other viewpoints will be welcome or tolerated."

Unfortunately, I don’t see how it benefits this hobby to turn forums for hi end in to the equivalent of churches, with their own single and exclusive dogma, which if you don’t tow the line you are excommunicated. How has that ever been a good idea (for anything!).

The audio hobby isn’t just comprised of people with one single viewpoint - there is a spectrum - and it’s not right to try to exclude other audiophile’s opinions as not being worthy of discussion or inclusion...just because you don’t like alternative views, and don’t wish to have your own claims challenged.

Sorry...we are all going to have a voice here. Unless and until Audiogon decides to resort to church-like fiat and dogma and shut down those opinions.

(As to the civility of those opinions...that’s another thing. I welcome moderation in terms of keeping things civil).

Hey prof, most contributors here are  superhumans who can hear sounds that do not exist.  No logic to reason with them.
Some even argue that fuse direction makes a difference to the sound.

They (think) they hear it, so it is done. Dont stoop down to needing scentific explanations from superhumans.

nonoise,

You are yet again whacking a strawman - repeating the same misrepresentations and fallacies as you have before in these conversations.  Your last paragraph especially displays this. (Nothing I have written entails the wholesale abandonment of the reliability of our perception or senses...and you should know that as I've corrected you before when you kept pretending my arguments lead to that).

If you simply are unwilling to maturely consider other points of view - which entails actually reading what someone writes and not completely mischaracterizing it every time - then I agree conversation between us is going to be useless.

I can only suggest you try not to take other points of view so personally, as some personal affront. 


And maybe

Just maybe

Consider that admitting to being human and having some fallibility, isn't such a bad thing to admit.

markalarsen345 posts12-19-2018 12:56pm

Power cables are all about EMI.

>>>Not sure how they can be “all about EMI” since they are generally shielded from EMI. Am I missing something? 😳 If you’re thinking of EMI coming in through the wall outlet no power cord can prevent that. Shielding is not equivalent to absorption. A reasonable approach to deciding what is important for power cords would be to list all their desired attributes/characteristics and arrange them by priority and cost. It’s not rocket science. 🚀

Power cables are all about EMI. 

The reason I never replied to @prof was that I went to sleep after my last post. The urgent and provocative nature of his reply belies what seems to be a basic need to argue, however skillfully, to no apparent end. The man loves to hear himself talk.

Waking up to the provocations and like was entertaining, to say the (really) least.

His analogies are tangential at best, as they are off the subject and designed to lull lessor discerning folk into conflating an obvious conclusion with one not really relatable. Nice tactic. 

It's like listening to a broken record. Take placebo. This has been hashed to death and yet it rears it's stupid head. When it comes to audio, anyone can be fooled by a cheap parlor trick, as it's done in the short term. Myriad variables are introduced in a A/B test that are simply not present when listening as a pleasure.

After being fooled in a A/B test, one simply goes back to their system and in short order, they can recognize the differences that fooled them after immersing themselves in a listening session. The placebo excuse assumes that we all go on listening the wrong way. A simply silly notion.

To assume that we are so fallible, broken and easily fooled all day, every day, and we are not to trust our senses, begs the notion as to why we're all still alive, having not blown up, shocked, or killed ourselves in some silly manner due to placebo, or some other phenomenon. 

All the best,
Nonoise

I started the placebo suggestion, and where I was going with it is, not to say there is no effect on sound. If you have noise in your system and replace the power cord and it cleans it up, a 5 year old can distinguish between the two. It's the claims of " so obvious that it cannot be missed". Just like picking out a Magnepan from a JBL speaker. At that level of difference, you would not have to live with a system for days, it would very easy to blind test, a casual listener would prefer 1 over the other every time. If there is a marked difference between cables and advanced audiophiles can perceive it, don't worry about blind testing. I mean it's "obvious". Just like spending $10,000 on speakers instead of $500. It makes a big difference.  

I once believed in the power of measurement and placebo. That was back when I struggled to hear any difference between DACs and CDPs. Well after years reading nothing but Stereo Review, with Julian Hirsch and his wire is wire measurements uber alles mantra, what else was gonna happen? Especially since he had the technical argument wrapped up, while the other side seemed suspiciously all snake-oil marketing. 

Plus, personal experience. First time out I stood right there as one guy who had driven 300 miles to compare two DACs auditioned them side by side. And the guy said, "I don't hear any difference."

Yeah. Right. Because there is no difference. 

But again, this was before I learned and developed any real listening skills. Thankfully the dealer was very patient and let me bring in my Magnavox CDB-650 to compare. Sort of seemed not quite as good as their Proceed, maybe. But hard to say for sure how.

(This by the way is part of the problem. If you want to talk psychology, try the psychology of why it is very hard to notice something you have no language to describe. Unlike placebo, this will actually be fruitful.)

The breakthrough for me was when I made the drive from Seattle to Portland just to compare interconnects, because they had this little XLO device that let you switch quickly between them. Because, the story goes, its impossible to remember such miniscule changes for more than a fraction of a second. Which is total crap. But I believed it.

So I drove to Portland. With my patch cords. My Julian Hirsch patch cords. Because surely what they throw in the box for free must be good enough, right? (And people here have said the same about power cords, so its not like I was the only one sucked into this nonsense.) Only, bad luck, dealer says sorry it broke, but you can still do it if you want.

So I said okay, waste of time, but might as well. Only don't further waste my time with that $750 (yikes!) interconnect, let me try something I might actually buy. So he gives me something for $75 from XLO. 

Then he just leaves me alone. (This btw is what the really good dealers do. They leave you alone to relax and listen. If what they have is really good it sells itself. Seriously. On the way home my wife was asking if we could buy those speakers. Which we did. Even though they cost a lot more than what I had just bought less than a year before.)

After a few minutes listening to the $75 I got up and changed the input and swapped to my patch cord, and changed the input back and... HOLY CRAP quick turn that off and see what you did to BREAK HIS AMP before he finds out! Honestly, seriously, that is what I thought. I was sure I had totally messed something up. I was still standing behind the amp. Never even made it to sit back down. Checked everything again. Sure looks okay. But Gawd it sounds awful!

It was the interconnect. In spite of everything I had been told for years and years, they do not in fact sound the same. You can in fact remember long enough to switch them out. The differences can even be so glaringly obvious you don't even need to sit down and try and listen.

Again this was years ago, way back when I was first learning how and what to listen for. Which I remember like it was yesterday, even though it was well over 20 years ago.

Probably all the guys who have gone through this are nodding agreement. When you know, you know. There is none of this placebo measurements yadda yadda. Even questions of how or why fade to mere curiosities. When you know, you know.

At that moment, I knew. And once you do know, believe me, it only gets better and better.

But first, you gotta make the effort.

 

Lizzie, not really Exhibit A of a careful and thorough listener, nor particularly interested in tweaks. Nor is she particularly open minded. She is probably Exhibit A for a person who’s general attitude can be summarized into one word. - “whatever.”

No wonder we all like her!!!!!!

@geoffkait " Actually, no offense intended, but my impression of Lizzie is that she’s not really Exhibit A of a careful and thorough listener nor is she particularly interested in tweaks"

First, nobody asked. Including me.

Second, of course you meant offense, it is your M.O. It is hard to tell if there is anything more important to you than offending.

Third, it might be just your opinion, but it sounds like this time it is off base. Again.

Fourth, from my few short months here I find her input to be more credible, honest and useful than yours

It really is interesting, provocative, and revealing that there are so many contributors to this forum who are so linguistically limited, challenged, and incompetent that they must essentially and practically resort to hieroglyphics in order to be able to communicate with those who are literate it is a real reflection on the quality of their education.

I'm not the one who introduced the term "placebo" and would not - as I had clearly stated - simply attributed either real audible results or imagined audio results to the "placebo effect."  As I keep mentioning, we suffer a range of perceptual biases.  "Placebo effect" is often raised in threads like these as a short hand for bias effects.


The placebo effect is absolutely fascinating in that it's not restricted to mere bias and perceptual error, but it can actually produce a variety of physical results.  Lots is known about the effects of placebo, but very little understood about the mechanisms.  In the drug trial I mentioned the subjects comprised people with a history of peanut allergy reactions, so they were familiar with what it was like to react to peanuts.   And yet some who were given the placebo pill actually vomited...even had hives and other physical reactions...of the type they get when they are exposed to actual peanut protein!

The power of the placebo effect (among other biases) is why - whether we know the mechanism or not - if you are testing for the efficacy of the drug in question, you have to control for the placebo effect to sift the efficacy of the drug from that caused by placebo. 


The necessity of these controls was further apparent when, after the results were unblinded I talked to the researchers.  They had, in essence for "fun," been trying to ascertain which of their subjects was on placebo and which were on the actual peanut protein.  It turned out in many cases they were simply wrong, due to the confounding reactions to the placebo.  Some people they felt SURE were reacting to peanut protein were on the placebo.  Some people they were sure were on the placebo (due to lack of symptoms) were on the peanut protein.  This shows how utterly skewed their empirical inferences could have been if they had not conducted a controlled, blinded test.



In fact there was a fascinating article in the NYT a while back I read on people trying to get to the bottom of the mechanisms involved in the placebo effect.  Here it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/magazine/placebo-effect-medicine.html

But, all that said, as I've written many times "placebo effect," although often used as a short-hand in these discussions, does not at all denote, or cover, all the specific forms of bias and phenemonena going on in human perception, including what we would have to untangle in understanding the relationship between our gear and what we are hearing.

I also have mentioned many times I would never expect or advocate the idea everyone needs to go blind testing everything...or anything!...they buy.  I don't.  We all just have to satisfy ourselves.

It's only when we get in to discussions trying to understand what is going on, and when claims start being made - e.g. "AC cables DEFINITELY alter the sound of a system" and "I know this because I've heard it, and it can't be on the basis of any perceptual bias"....when people make these declarations, it's fair to raise the reasons one can have for caution in just accepting such claims.

Well, hi there, 💩 for 🧠 👨🏻‍✈️🚌  Have you been huffing aviation fumes again? Bad martini time, bad!

Meeeoooow!😻

Actually, no offense intended, but my impression of Lizzie is that she’s not really Exhibit A of a careful and thorough listener nor is she particularly interested in tweaks. Nor is she particularly open minded. But that is just my opinion. Maybe she’s entirely different from how she presents herself here, as more of a curmudgeon. She is probably Exhibit A for a person who’s general attitude can be summarized into one word. - “whatever.”

Uh, audio ain’t clinical trials. Give us a break! 

@prof No offense taken. It’s probably a good thing to be reminded here and there of the subjective and sometimes fallable nature of human perception. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive, but I interpreted your remarks on human listening error as “there’s no way you can hear a sound change with a power cable and if you think you did, you’re wrong,” which is a bold statement to make given there are many different types of cables, types of systems, listening rooms, and listeners. The combination is nearly endless which probably plays a role in why some people hear it and some people don’t. Don’t get me wrong - I’m sure I have been “fooled” by my own ears here and there, but I have two examples (the power cord and a speaker wire example) where I’m confident I’m not being fooled - the sound did change, for better in one example and for worse in the other. 

It sounds like you are listening the “right way.” 😃 Good point on the lights. A low light level is more enjoyable!

Yeah see, a bit of reason. 

My issue is with those who cry "placebo!" (and let loose the hounds of internet beatings!).... and then most, who have no idea, go along with it.....

And they pick it up and use it too....as it curve fit their desires and expectations so darned well....

I have a fair working understanding of placebo effect as a physician and as a clinical trials assistant prior to that. 

And I agree with you that the subject is complex. A lot of people are also unaware of the corollary to placebo which is the nocebo effect. It further complicates the whole process.

I also agree that its existence (along with closely related and probably inseparable consideration of psycho-acoustics) is not sufficient to dismiss all arguments regarding SQ issues. And yet, it must be considered and suggesting that it must be considered has nothing to do with self-righteousness or axe -weilding. It is often the elephant in the room that has to be tamed before legitimate and reproducible evidence is put forward.

Not sure that some truly understand the palcebo effect.

The placebo effect can cause real actual measurable change or alterations in the human body. immune response, Herxheimer response, inflammation response, chemical balance response, and more.

So it is impossible to do medical studies and just say ’placebo’. It is far far too complex for that simplicity to exist as most people think it does.

It also means it is not proper or even remotely real to name drop ’palcebo’ into an audio discussion... and consider the case solved in one’s favor...... so that it can be ’justifiably’ used as an axe to attack the understandings and opinions of others. With full clouds of feverish spinning righteousness attached.

To the informed, which sadly, number a frightening few....it shows a notable amount of ignorance of the subject at hand.

Human hearing, for example, is a half in half out consciousness and unconscious affair... that is a variable and hand built..and alterable, shiftable, tunable, in that half-in half-out kind of way.

Which the complexities of placebo, which is directly indicated but misapplied... play in that field and area.

And that's just a minimal (very incomplete) descriptor of the one component of a very complex scenario.

@elizabeth I am glad to hear you admit that. Especially from someone experienced as you and from one who also, according to your previous posts, is very open minded about tweaks and improvements.

That mirrors my (limited) experience as well.

Now, you may be able to get "in the zone" and very accurately assess SQ differences. I have a much harder time with this unless I am doing immediate A/B testing which usually requires someone to help switching from one source to another. 

I have a much harder time, for instance, listening to a whole song or CD and then listening to it again after a change and being able to quantify what I've heard. I might be able to say there is a difference but have a harder time saying which is better and sometimes even saying what the exact difference is.

Maybe I'll get better. But until then, me doing a cord test is not likely going to be valuable for me or anyone else.

@mkgus,

I think nonoise is getting upset with you because you are denying his very reality without having any experience with it via sitting in a arm chair 500 miles away removed from his situation and then going on to cite how fallable the mind is: it’s borderline insulting.

No mature, reasonable person should find facts insulting. Including facts about being human.

Ever seen optical illusions? They show us ways in which our perception can be fooled. Are you, or nonoise, "insulted" by being shown how such perception is fallible? Would it make sense to be "insulted" when being shown a fact about human perception?

Scientists often use double-blind studies. I’ve mentioned before: my son is involved in a double blind study for an allergy treatment. Both my son and the doctor were "blinded" to whether my son was receiving a placebo or the actual drug. Why? Because it’s so well known how human bias works in confounding the results. If the experimenters know which people are on the real drug, they can subtly influence the outcome of the results in ways they aren’t even themselves aware of. We know simply giving someone a fake pill can produce perceptions of results if people think it may be something that affects their system. In fact, as is often the case, in this study some people had what they took to be allergic reactions to the placebo....which is why double-blinding is used to reduce the "noise" of bias effects in the results.

Now, this is simply based on what we know about human bias and perception. Should the doctors have felt insulted to be blinded during the research? Of course not; they are mature adults and simply understand they are fallible in ways that they ought to control for.Should we have been scandalized to have been blinded to whether we were on the placebo or real drug as in "How DARE you think I can’t KNOW whether this drug is working or not. Don’t you TRUST ME?"

Of course not. We’d be bad subjects to be so irrational.

And yet, if you simply remind some audiophiles that we are all human, and we know that humans have biases that can confound our inferences, then they feel scandalized, insulted. It’s not even saying their perception and results ARE in error. It’s only to suggest that, given the facts of bias effects, that it COULD POSSIBLY be in error. And even the suggestion their perception COULD POSSIBLY be in error is seen as an occasion for being insulted, and hurling back insults.  Against all scientific evidence to the contrary, apparently these audiophiles can be confident they are never in error and no perceptual biases are operating.

Do you see the problem here at all?


I have been very careful to say, explicitly, that I’m not claiming from my own results "AC cables make no sonic difference" and I have NEVER claimed that nonoise or you or anyone else DID NOT hear a REAL sonic difference. I have only raised the issue of how difficult it can be to get the bottom of many of the more audiophile/tweaky claims due to the bias effects we all suffer from. And given this, it’s reasonable to ask "how do we deal with trying to untangle real audible differences from imagined audible differences?"

Why can’t a mature, calm conversation be had about this? There is no reason whatsoever to take such questions as insults.


BTW, as to how I listen to my system: I listen from my sweet spot, often lights out, truly involved in the music and sound quality. I’m as obsessive as any audiophile in that regard.
Cheers.

@ mkgus OP

This may help you to better understand "the why do".
https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/why-power-cables-make-a-difference/
.

@mrdecibel : " I will avoid and ignore them whenever I can"

That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. Someone who will never believe in the benefits of power cords may share other mutual beliefs and experiences and may also have something valuable to contribute.

And that also speaks to the brand "naysayer". As well as my question about $22,000 power cords (nonoise). Which, by the way, is not a straw man argument at all. The point I'm trying to make is that there comes a point at which all of us will become naysayers. And while $22,000 is an extreme example, a $500 power cord sounds pretty extreme to the person who looks at the beefy power cord that came with his Mark Levinson amp....at no additional cost.

 And that is not to mention that we could be having this same conversation about little blue decals that we stick behind curtains and pictures on our walls that improve the SQ of our system. I'm sure there is some 'science' behind these as well. I'm sure we would have fervent debate about the nature of that science that would yield no consensus. And there would also be people who say that they can here the difference and that they are reliable in their observations. 

Also, I appreciate your references for affordable aftermarket cords. I will look into them but if you've followed my leap into hi-fi you also know I'm a cheap bast@rd. Heck, my DAC only costs $110. But I will tell you, last night I almost got up and put in a cheap power  cord to my amp. The only thing that stopped me is how much trouble it is. The amp weighs 95 pounds and is on a component stand that can't be moved without pulling the amp all the way out....not to mention the tangle of cords to sort through.

However, I am building built-ins soon and it all has to come out. I'll either do the test then or maybe even try a cord you recommend. I'm not sure that the cheap cord vs OEM cord is a god test. Naysayer that I am I fully believe that a cord with insufficient current flow could affect how an amp operates.

Finally (I'm sure no one has read this far), I do not know who assembled my system; the original owner or an expert adviser. Could have been either. The cousin in question dives real deep into stuff so I would not have put it past him to have done the legwork. 

Photos can be photoshopped. Hel-loo! Besides you can take a photo of a UFO or even a video of a UFO and people still won’t believe you. 👽 It’s human nature to make one’s mind up before the evidence is presented and not to change one’s mind as a result of any evidence.

I’m also curious to know how the naysayers listen to their systems. Do they sit directly in front of the speakers for hours on end doing nothing but listening to the music in a sound treated room with a quiet mind and focused intention? Or is it just on in the background as they go about their day. If given the latter, I would be in the naysayer camp. No way I could pick up on subtleties of cables from across the room while doing dishes - at least I don’t think I could. 

Take a photo of the bird. Problem solved.

@prof It’s really no different than if an experienced bird watcher said they saw a specific bird in their backyard and you went on and on about how they don’t migrate this far north and how fallable the mind is. If it was a little kid, maybe it would be more acceptable. But someone who has years of experience, to start with a discussion of how easily the mind is fooled is a subtle way of saying, “You’re wrong, you’re delusional, and I know more than you.” It’s a bit confrontational. 

Yet if your claim is at all challenged with reasonable questions you get so incensed as to insult the questioner as “having problems.”

Are we supposed to simply sit down, shut up and accept anything nonoise claims as The Truth without possibly questioning it? 

If not...why does questioning your claims cause you to insult the questioner?

I think nonoise is getting upset with you because you are denying his very reality without having any experience with it via sitting in a arm chair 500 miles away removed from his situation and then going on to cite how fallable the mind is: it’s borderline insulting. If you are implying cables cannot affect sound, then I can only ask you to open your mind and seek out experiences. I’ve shared my experiences. I was in the doubtful camp and did not want to spend money on cables to get the most out of my system. I still want to resist them but I have come to know that they have their time and place and shouldn’t be overlooked if one is interested in extracting the most out of your system. I don’t know how they work, either, but that is the first step in scientific inquiry: make an observation. From there you ask questions, hence the reason I started this thread. 

Nonoise, naysayers are excellent in pulling us in to these conversations and debates. I have nothing to prove to them, and do not care in what they think or believe. They have the problems and issues with it, not you, and certainly not me. I am learning who " these folks " are, and I will avoid and ignore them whenever I can. I try to help others to experience improvements in sq, but it requires them to try things for themselves. Truly, this is their loss if they don't, because either they doubt what the ear / brain thing can do, or, simply, do not have the abilities to hear, what you and I, and so many others, hear. That's it. Done. So, my advice to you, as I will do, is to bail out from this thread. Believe me, " these folks " will surely show up elsewhere, repeating the same behavior. This is " high end audio ", which is all about extracting those last bits of musical information from our systems. This is why we spend the money we do. See you around. Enjoy ! MrD.

Prof, I really enjoy your sharp yet polite patient words. Couldn't said better by myself.

nonoise

Why do reasonable questions upset you?

Why do you think it’s perfectly fine that you declare to the crowd that you KNOW your position is correct and that you know you exhibit no bias effect when evaluating cables.

Yet if your claim is at all challenged with reasonable questions you get so incensed as to insult the questioner as “having problems.”

Are we supposed to simply sit down, shut up and accept anything nonoise claims as The Truth without possibly questioning it?


If not...why does questioning your claims cause you to insult the questioner?

Prof, 
You have issues.

nonoise

The only scientific evidence I can steer you to is empirically derived:

People who go to psychics also have "empirically derived" conclusions.They experienced the fact the psychic simply knew things about them that the purported psychic  "could not have known or guessed."


But of course, these people have typically made incorrect evaluations of their empirical experience. They just don’t know enough about the facts of cold reading to understand how they could have been fooled. So long as they never take on the facts of how people are fooled by cold reading, they will never relinquish their belief, and go to their grave sure their inference to real psychic powers was correct.

So...empirical experience is a dime a dozen. The question is: how well we reason from our empirical experience to explain it, and figure out if our inferences are sound.

And, no, it’s not the placebo effect, or hysteria, or delusions, or expectation bias.

How did you determine this?
Because....human perceptual biases are actually a thing....right? I presume you aren’t going to claim they don’t exist. Therefore, how do you determine that your experience was NOT caused by some expectation or other bias effect?


If your answer is along the lines "because I had the strong experience of hearing a difference" that is obviously begging the question, and would simply display ignorance about the nature of bias.

Nonoise, I leave them all to you....I am exhausted, and likely done here. Enjoy ! MrD.

@mrdecibel
I realize you've deemed me not worth your time.

But just in case you are feeling generous...

my time and experience in the field has allowed me to train myself to hear very minute differences amongst all related items in audio.

Could you tell us please what experience you are referring to?  Are you simply an audiophile who has listened to a lot of audio equipment?  Or do you work in audio in some capacity?