Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: audiophile power cords (Read 56884 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

audiophile power cords

Reply #50 –
Quote from: timcupery on
Quote from: Light-Fire on
You always have to ABX. Otherwise it is not valid, because it is not scientific (check the forum TOS #8.)
Besides. Audiophiles claim increased "sound quality" and not noise reduction, when using their expensive power cords.

I heard vehicle noise when a car drove past in front of my house. But since I can't repeat this setup blind, I can't ABX it. therefore I can't actually be sure it made noise when it passed... maybe I was just filling in the audio space with placebo since I expected noise when I saw the vehicle.

point being, there are some things that don't need blind-testing to be confidently heard. there are commonsense limits to TOS-8 Nazism...


Point being: welcome to the scientific method. If you can't prove it don't claim it.

Besides, as I said before, audiophiles that buy those cords are not concerned with noise (otherwise they would never listen to vinyl). They are concerned with a "brighter sound" possible with a silver power cord, or a "warmer sound" from a copper one. And other absurdities like that.

audiophile power cords

Reply #51 –
You can't claim you don't need DBT/ABX because something heard is obvious and real, because the people who are only imagining that they're hearing stuff almost always claim that it's easily heard and obviously real.

If you're going to make an exception for 50/60 Hz hum (or whatever), you have to have an objective criteria for making such exceptions. If you just say "I don't need to do an ABX because I'm sure I heard it in this case", anyone can claim that in every other case.

It doesn't matter if I (or the majority) believe you heard it or not - it's not a subjective opinion poll.

drewfx

audiophile power cords

Reply #52 –
I understand the problems of using "commonsense" as an excuse to avoid blind-testing. I simply meant to point out that there are instances where blind testing isn't necessary.

I believe Porcus made exactly the same point about the case in question (speaker ground, mentioned by Sycraft) in saying that it would be just as audible as skipping on a cd, or a cooling fan on the computer starting up in earnest.

However, I would be fully willing to sit in my room with my eyes closed and/or not looking out the window, and tell someone watching the window when a car just passed, just as I assume Porcus would be willing to ABX a skipping CD or Sycraft would be willing to ABX the effect of the ground loop.

I'm fully aware of the things that audiophiles think they hear, and their frequent resistance to any sort of blind-testing in order to prove it.
My point is only that some things are obvious enough you don't waste your time with blind-testing b/c you know you could (and would be willing to do so if someone pushes you on it).
That's why I picked an obvious example where ABX testing would be absurd. I can clearly hear the car passing in front of my house. Usually I'm not even looking out the window.

This is quite diff from an audiophile who is digging up excuses for why he (almost invariably males) won't do a blind test in order to prove that he hears a difference.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

audiophile power cords

Reply #53 –
timcupery, your car driving by a window example can be further expanded to an instance where ABX testing will definitely apply.

Instead of saying "I can hear a car passing by my window, so I don't need to ABX that", most of the people who claim to not need ABX testing to hear the difference are more along the lines of the analogy of "I can determine the make and model of the car passing by my window just by hearing it.  I can tell if it's a Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, Dodge Charger, or Ford Mustang!"  That's the type of claim most audiophools and anti-ABX people make.  Furthmore, they'll make absurd claims like the brand of tires used make a substantial difference in the operability of the engine and the catalytic converter.

audiophile power cords

Reply #54 –
Quote from: WonderSlug on
timcupery, your car driving by a window example can be further expanded to an instance where ABX testing will definitely apply.

Instead of saying "I can hear a car passing by my window, so I don't need to ABX that", most of the people who claim to not need ABX testing to hear the difference are more along the lines of the analogy of "I can determine the make and model of the car passing by my window just by hearing it.  I can tell if it's a Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, Dodge Charger, or Ford Mustang!"  That's the type of claim most audiophools and anti-ABX people make.  Furthmore, they'll make absurd claims like the brand of tires used make a substantial difference in the operability of the engine and the catalytic converter.


I'm fairly sure he realises this...

I wonder if the people going on about ABXing AC hum and welcoming us to the "scientific method" actually know what a ground loop sounds like! If yes, "cargo cult science" is what springs to mind...

audiophile power cords

Reply #55 –
@WonderSlug - I realize this. my whole point is that there are different degrees of claims, and some which more obviously call for blind testing than others.

anyway, I'm quite aware of the scientific method. no "welcoming" necessary
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

audiophile power cords

Reply #56 –
Quote from: WonderSlug on
...most of the people who claim to not need ABX testing to hear the difference are more along the lines of the analogy of "I can determine the make and model of the car passing by my window just by hearing it.  I can tell if it's a Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, Dodge Charger, or Ford Mustang!"  That's the type of claim most audiophools and anti-ABX people make.


Different makes of cars do make distinctive sounds, although telling apart subtly different cars would be stretching things. But the audiophools' claims are more along the lines of being able to tell what colour shirt the driver of the car is wearing based on the sound the car makes as it drives by.

audiophile power cords

Reply #57 –
Quote from: timcupery on
I understand the problems of using "commonsense" as an excuse to avoid blind-testing. I simply meant to point out that there are instances where blind testing isn't necessary.


Even guys like me (who um, invented ABX) have had days where they said: "This is obviously audible, no ABX needed", and then after reconsidering things said: "But what the hey, its easy enough to do one anyway", and then earned a few things!

Being able to do an ABX test more or less at will is sorta like a life skill for anybody who is really serious about audio. Certainly a person who has never done an ABX test on their own is in a reduced state of crediblity when they say  "This is obviously audible, no ABX needed".

Right now I'm involved in some listening test involving loudspeaker imaging.  You might be interested in how we are doing this: SMWTMS Speaker Imaging Listening Test Details

What may not be obvious from the documentation is the fact that this test is being done in a dark room with the speakers behind an acoustically transparent curtain.

Now differences in loudspeaker imaging are pretty obvious, right? ;-)


audiophile power cords

Reply #58 –
I agree that many things which seem obvious aren't.
my original point was simply that there are some things which are sufficiently obvious as to not need testing. but I agree that category is smaller than many people believe.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

audiophile power cords

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
I agree that things are "worth" whatever people will pay for them. However, this is a matter for consumer education. A $5,000 used car can get you to work and to the supermarket. A $5,000 diamond has no intrinsic or practical value.


I think you miss the point, it's not about intrinsic worth or practical value, it's about the thing actually being what it's promised as being.

Is a $27,000,000 Van Gogh painting "worth" $27,000,000? It's just a couple bucks worth of paint, canvas, and wood frame, right? It's worth comes from it's beauty and it's rarity.

A diamond is valued based on it's Cut, Clarity, Caret, and Color(the 4 C's). A $5000 diamond promises to be nothing more that very pretty when it's worn, and for it's particular amount of 4C to be rare enough to be worth $5000. And on those points it ussually delivers.

On the other hand, a $5000 audio cable promises to *sound better* than a $100 audio cable, and on that point, they almost always *fail*.

audiophile power cords

Reply #60 –
Quote from: gcronau on
On the other hand, a $5000 audio cable promises to *sound better* than a $100 audio cable, and on that point, they almost always *fail*.


LOL, you don't have to convince me! And it's not "almost" always.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

audiophile power cords

Reply #61 –
I've stayed out of this for the simple reason I'm tired of "cable wars". I must point out, though, that if a cable is capable of delivering the power to the device in question, maintain proper grounding, etc, then any difference that becomes actually, really, DBT-audible has to show a major design flaw in the device under test, be it power supply rejection, pin 1 issues, or whatever.

While there are subtleties in designing power supplies, the idea of filtering out the incoming noise is hardly a new problem, nor are 'X capacitors' notoriously expensive or hard to come by.  Power cables that "filter the power" are, if they do anything, doing something that the power supply already should have done.  Power cables that have a 'wide bandwidth', if they make any actual audio difference, show that the power supply filtering is insufficient in terms of the power supply throwing switching/turn on noise back into the line. Again, 'X capacitors' are cheap and readily available.

If a power cable makes a real, audible difference from another sufficiently large power cable, the box it connects to is faulty.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

audiophile power cords

Reply #62 –
Quote from: gcronau on
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
I agree that things are "worth" whatever people will pay for them. However, this is a matter for consumer education. A $5,000 used car can get you to work and to the supermarket. A $5,000 diamond has no intrinsic or practical value.

A diamond is valued based on it's Cut, Clarity, Caret, and Color(the 4 C's). A $5000 diamond promises to be nothing more that very pretty when it's worn, and for it's particular amount of 4C to be rare enough to be worth $5000. And on those points it ussually delivers.

There is also value as a status symbol and resale value. These aspects also come in to play in high end audio. And as far as subjectively sounding better, after spending $5000, expectation bias can make that happen.

audiophile power cords

Reply #63 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
If a power cable makes a real, audible difference from another sufficiently large power cable, the box it connects to is faulty.

Hear Hear.

Paul

     
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

audiophile power cords

Reply #64 –
Quote from: Notat on
Quote from: gcronau on
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
I agree that things are "worth" whatever people will pay for them. However, this is a matter for consumer education. A $5,000 used car can get you to work and to the supermarket. A $5,000 diamond has no intrinsic or practical value.

A diamond is valued based on it's Cut, Clarity, Caret, and Color(the 4 C's). A $5000 diamond promises to be nothing more that very pretty when it's worn, and for it's particular amount of 4C to be rare enough to be worth $5000. And on those points it ussually delivers.

There is also value as a status symbol and resale value. These aspects also come in to play in high end audio. And as far as subjectively sounding better, after spending $5000, expectation bias can make that happen.


While there is a lot of huffing and blowing smoke about audio and jewelry resale values, the percentages are on the average very dreary. The agents who actually do the transactions take a pretty steep cut.  Precious stones and metals are more meaningful in countries that lack stable economies and first world style rule of law.

That all said I've banked a fair amount of cash from used high end audio gear in the past couple of years. But, that gear's acquisition costs were very, very low - basically the cost of removal and transportation.  I have friends who have been doing this for years and claim it makes a nice little annuity, but their modus operandi is to go to auctions,  and estate sales, wait around for the better part of a day and wait for someone to do something stupid like sell some legacy McIntosh or Marantz gear for pennies.

As far as the status value goes, that has a lot to do with your community and social circle. In my community, its all about the size of your boat. What is audio? ;-) Just drive down main street and compare the size of the houses, the boat and car dealers, and the audio stores and reach your own conclusion.  Main street in my town has one tiny AV dealer and over 10 banks and who knows how many investment brokers in a 1 mile stretch. We have high end boat stores by the mile.  I live right on the great lakes, right?

There is a lot of sic transit gloria mundi in your life if you play the status game. I have some friends who jumped right on the Hi Def SOTA bandwagon and spent the big buck$ on the very early blu ray and HDTV projection TV systems. If I'm willing to suffer the indignity of sitting within 10' of my Mitsubishi 60' DLP RPTV, I get basically the same experience and have a lot of change left over from $1K, only a few years later.

audiophile power cords

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I have some friends who jumped right on the Hi Def SOTA bandwagon and spent the big buck$ on the very early blu ray and HDTV projection TV systems. If I'm willing to suffer the indignity of sitting within 10' of my Mitsubishi 60' DLP RPTV, I get basically the same experience and have a lot of change left over from $1K, only a few years later.


No kidding Arny. I waited before buying my first Blu-ray player and paid $250. Then two years later it started acting flaky, so I bought a new Sony model that's much better (many more features) at Costco for only $95 out the door, no waiting for rebates etc. I never buy into anything new when it first comes out. A year later the cost will be 1/3 and the quality will be 3x better.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

audiophile power cords

Reply #66 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I have some friends who jumped right on the Hi Def SOTA bandwagon and spent the big buck$ on the very early blu ray and HDTV projection TV systems. If I'm willing to suffer the indignity of sitting within 10' of my Mitsubishi 60' DLP RPTV, I get basically the same experience and have a lot of change left over from $1K, only a few years later.


No kidding Arny. I waited before buying my first Blu-ray player and paid $250. Then two years later it started acting flaky, so I bought a new Sony model that's much better (many more features) at Costco for only $95 out the door, no waiting for rebates etc. I never buy into anything new when it first comes out. A year later the cost will be 1/3 and the quality will be 3x better.

It looks to me like low cost Blu Ray players are being subsidized by media marketers. I can't believe the value - for < $100 you get a player that loads 3+ times faster than your last DVD player (don't mention the load times for 1st gen Blu Ray), gives great pictures even from legacy media, surfs the web for Netflix streams etc,  and has a built in network client so you play fiiles off of your home LAN.

audiophile power cords

Reply #67 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It looks to me like low cost Blu Ray players are being subsidized by media marketers. I can't believe the value - for < $100 you get a player that loads 3+ times faster than your last DVD player (don't mention the load times for 1st gen Blu Ray), gives great pictures even from legacy media, surfs the web for Netflix streams etc,  and has a built in network client so you play fiiles off of your home LAN.

Actually I find that less amazing than the fact that DVD players have been selling for $25 or less for some time now. The mechanics of a BluRay player are not that different. The laser diode is a bit more expensive, but all that extra electronics constitute the one area where costs keep dropping precipitously, so I suspect they are still making a good profit on the players, even at $100.