Power cords

[porcy62]

One side believe in strictly scientific explanation, the other side in what they hear.

FWIW, a true blind test could be useful for both; if there isn't any difference of statistical significance, there wouldn't be anything that needed to be explained.

Correct, though jazz1 reported his personal blind test, and the scientifists cutted his throat.

That was hardly a true blind test. Too many variables.

Again, it would be really easy to do this the right way, since as Kevin explained, our audio memory is extremely short.

If you're tesing the power cord on a CD player, the test would be set up like this:

-- Get two identical CD players.

-- Hook them up to your preamp/amp with the same cable at the same length. Hopefully your preamp/amp has separate inputs that are switchable (CD, Aux1, Aux2, etc.) Use two of the same or check the specs to make sure each of the inputs has the same specs (impedence, frequency response, etc. They should be, but you never know. Just don't use the turntable preamp input! )

-- Start with the stock power cords.

-- Take two identical CDs and load them in the players.

-- Press play on both at the same time.

-- Listen and switch back and forth between the two, make sure they sound the same (they should if the manufacturer is worth anything).

-- Put the expensive power cable on one and restart the identical CDs. Switch between the two. Is there a difference?

Better yet, try the test on one person at a time, not telling the person that you're switching between an expensive cord and a regular cord. Just ask the if they hear any difference.

Nice, for being 'scientifically' relevant, it should sample a fair number of people, with a good hearing and some knowledge about music: music lovers, musicians, etc.

And did you do it this way?

Edited May 4, 2008 by porcy62

[Jim Alfredson]

No, but the burden of proof is not on me.

[porcy62]

No, but the burden of proof is not on me.

Why not on you? You stated that a power chord is just a power chord, jazz1 made his 'naive' blind test, you stated his test as unreliable. Fine. I didn't see any reliable blind test on your posts. Nor jazz1 want to sell to anybody fancy power chords, so where is the TRUTH?

OUT THERE?

[Daniel A]

Why not on you? You stated that a power chord is just a power chord, jazz1 made his 'naive' blind test, you stated his test as unreliable. Fine. I didn't see any reliable blind test on your posts. Nor jazz1 want to sell to anybody fancy power chords, so where is the TRUTH?

OUT THERE?

I don't think anyone believes jazz1's test was naïve. It was obviously done with the purpose of being objective, and if it wasn't extensive enough to draw conclusions with any certainty, jazz1 himself did not claim it to be "scientific". Jim has suggested how the test could be performed to get more accurate test results. It's up to anyone with enough time and money on their hands to conduct this test. In the meantime, all we can do is present known facts for those interested in the question if and how power chords affect sound quality in home stereo equipment.

So far, some claim that they can hear the difference, but no tests have been made to back up their claim. Those with insight in electronics say that there's not likely to be any difference.

[porcy62]

Why not on you? You stated that a power chord is just a power chord, jazz1 made his 'naive' blind test, you stated his test as unreliable. Fine. I didn't see any reliable blind test on your posts. Nor jazz1 want to sell to anybody fancy power chords, so where is the TRUTH?

OUT THERE?

I don't think anyone believes jazz1's test was naïve. It was obviously done with the purpose of being objective, and if it wasn't extensive enough to draw conclusions with any certainty, jazz1 himself did not claim it to be "scientific". Jim has suggested how the test could be performed to get more accurate test results. It's up to anyone with enough time and money on their hands to conduct this test. In the meantime, all we can do is present known facts for those interested in the question if and how power chords affect sound quality in home stereo equipment.

So far, some claim that they can hear the difference, but no tests have been made to back up their claim. Those with insight in electronics say that there's not likely to be any difference.

Fair, no definitive answer at the end.

[Daniel A]

Fair, no definitive answer at the end.

And we still managed 50+ posts. Fun, eh?

[porcy62]

Fair, no definitive answer at the end.

And we still managed 50+ posts. Fun, eh?

We will solve this apocalyptic dilemma within few years, unless the Poles' ice will melt before.

[jazz1]

Bottled straight from the tap, chlorine intact. Why do I have the feeling that my post is being used to change the subject?

Yes I believe you, they do bottle tap water in the USA,, !!!!!!!!

[Christiern]

Just to get back on track....

[jazzbo]

If anyone has any fancy expensive power cords they don't want send them to me.

[jazz1]

Just to get back on track....

Thanks guys, it was fun!!

I've been wrong before?? but then again I am not the only one, even people with all the resources did believe that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. ;=}

[clarke68]

FWIW, a true blind test could be useful for both; if there isn't any difference of statistical significance, there wouldn't be anything that needed to be explained.

It has been done, to predictable results. Note that this is the article where jazz1 found his quotes below.

As countless listeners and reviewers have noted, equipment that measures wonderfully does not always sound good.

Can you provide links to reviews of some equipment that measures "wonderfully" and also "does not sound good"? Apparently there are "countless" numbers of them, so they should be very easy to find.

:-)

Obviously, you'll be hard pressed to find any reviews of equipment that "does not sound good". You can find many cases where a reviewer prefers one unit to another, but that has to do with the unit's price more often than it's measurements.

Conversely, equipment that does not measure well often captivates listeners accustomed to the sound of live acoustic performance.

I realize these are not your points, but this one is particularly silly. I'm a listener accustomed to the sound of live acoustic performance, but I'm not above being "captivated" by a good, swinging tune played on a cheap boom box. How is this supposed to support the notion that $300 power cords make a difference?

Seriously, tho...the most common case where audiophiles prefer equipment that does not measure well is with tube amps, which often demonstrate large (1% or more) percentages of 2nd order distortion. 2nd order distortion is very difficult to hear, and when audible, can come across as "warmth" or a subtle, pleasing "bloom" to the sound. No secret there, but alluding to that fact to justify the sonic effect of power cords is seriously reaching.

Two pieces of gear with equal measurements can sound markedly different.

It's true, measurements can't tell you how a component sounds. However, that doesn't make them irrelevant...every legitimate designer of audio gear uses measurements extensively during product development. Also, the pieces of gear you are probably referring to: amps, CD players, etc.; are several orders of magnitude more complex electrically than a power cord, and vastly more susceptible to the vagaries of implementation, part choice, etc.

Or does it suggest that there are mysteries to sound, perception, and levels of reality that human beings have yet to fully uncover, explore and understand?

There are indeed many mysteries about the mind and our perception of sound. There are very few mysteries about line transmission theory and how electrons move through wire. These are completely different.

Our foremost experts on brain research suspect that we might know 5% of how our brains work. Any time you get in a serious conversation with one of these guys about things that are interesting to audiophiles (like, why can I hear a difference between amplifiers when I'm just listening, but I can't when I'm doing an A/B test?) you are quickly informed this is an area that no one understands. The more knowledgeable the expert, the more emphatic his line in the sand will be.

If you can hear a difference between a $300 power cord and, say, a Volex 17604, the chances are much more likely it's because of what's between your ears than what's between your audio system and your power mains. The power of suggestion and confirmation bias is well known (but impossible to measure), but I've yet to see too many audiophiles give these things more credence than the money and/or time they spent on their latest upgrade.

Edited May 5, 2008 by clarke68

[jazzhound]

FWIW, a true blind test could be useful for both; if there isn't any difference of statistical significance, there wouldn't be anything that needed to be explained.

It has been done, to predictable results. Note that this is the article where jazz1 found his quotes below.

As countless listeners and reviewers have noted, equipment that measures wonderfully does not always sound good.

Can you provide links to reviews of some equipment that measures "wonderfully" and also "does not sound good"? Apparently there are "countless" numbers of them, so they should be very easy to find.

:-)

Obviously, you'll be hard pressed to find any reviews of equipment that "does not sound good". You can find many cases where a reviewer prefers one unit to another, but that has to do with the unit's price more often than it's measurements.

Conversely, equipment that does not measure well often captivates listeners accustomed to the sound of live acoustic performance.

I realize these are not your points, but this one is particularly silly. I'm a listener accustomed to the sound of live acoustic performance, but I'm not above being "captivated" by a good, swinging tune played on a cheap boom box. How is this supposed to support the notion that $300 power cords make a difference?

Seriously, tho...the most common case where audiophiles prefer equipment that does not measure well is with tube amps, which often demonstrate large (1% or more) percentages of 2nd order distortion. 2nd order distortion is very difficult to hear, and when audible, can come across as "warmth" or a subtle, pleasing "bloom" to the sound. No secret there, but alluding to that fact to justify the sonic effect of power cords is seriously reaching.

Two pieces of gear with equal measurements can sound markedly different.

It's true, measurements can't tell you how a component sounds. However, that doesn't make them irrelevant...every legitimate designer of audio gear uses measurements extensively during product development. Also, the pieces of gear you are probably referring to: amps, CD players, etc.; are several orders of magnitude more complex electrically than a power cord, and vastly more susceptible to the vagaries of implementation, part choice, etc.

Or does it suggest that there are mysteries to sound, perception, and levels of reality that human beings have yet to fully uncover, explore and understand?

There are indeed many mysteries about the mind and our perception of sound. There are very few mysteries about line transmission theory and how electrons move through wire. These are completely different.

Our foremost experts on brain research suspect that we might know 5% of how our brains work. Any time you get in a serious conversation with one of these guys about things that are interesting to audiophiles (like, why can I hear a difference between amplifiers when I'm just listening, but I can't when I'm doing an A/B test?) you are quickly informed this is an area that no one understands. The more knowledgeable the expert, the more emphatic his line in the sand will be.

If you can hear a difference between a $300 power cord and, say, a Volex 17604, the chances are much more likely it's because of what's between your ears than what's between your audio system and your power mains. The power of suggestion and confirmation bias is well known (but impossible to measure), but I've yet to see too many audiophiles give these things more credence than the money and/or time they spent on their latest upgrade.

I don't know why certain people assume price influenced listeners judgement in evaluating audio, other than to futher their argument, which seems to be about who knows more about electrons than the other guy.

I came upon my fav power chord by accident and with no expectations. I was supposed to audition a Pass amp in my system but found out quickly it wouldn't drive my speakers. so just for the hell of it I set my amp back up and used the power chord that came with Pass. It made my amp sound better after repeated listening to my suprise and was lucky to get The Cable Company to sell my that very chord for 20 bucks.

they wouldn't tell me the manufacturer of the power chord, reason being one of their suppliers was taking these chords, putting a fancy terminal on it and reselling for 300 bucks. ( so they say.)

Even greater improvements were made in my system (which started out sounding lousy) by changing speaker cables, interconnects including a MIT Zip chord for the DAC and using a Power Plant regenerator. Most of these changes would probably not been recommended by someone looking at things from a elecro- scientific background I dare say.

Edited May 6, 2008 by jazzhound

[Christiern]

I finally found a lightbulb that allows me to hear what Wellman Braud is really doing on those old Ellington sides.

[Chuck Nessa]

I found the perfect cactus for King Oliver. Sadly, there are only 5 plants left and I charge $300 per needle.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Bout time, too.

MG

[porcy62]

Well, considering that there have been many psycho-acoustic studies that demonstrated that human acoustic memory is only about 10 seconds, you would be a supreme human specimen to hold an acoustic memory for as long as 120 to 200 amp conversion would take.

Kevin, power chords a part, may you provide a links for this?

I was thinking about it and I found this statement pretty strange.

I mean that if human acoustic memory is only ten second, why children know their parents voice? As far I know, medics say that is useful to talk to child within the womb, and, as far I remember, they proved they recognize parents voice after the birth. At the same time, I can recognize human voice of old friends, after years, not 10 second. And why can I recognize the particular sound of Trane in a track I never heard before? In verbal communication I can even spot the nuance of a happy or angry tone. I must have some kind of acoustic memory somewhere that last more then 10 second.

Overall acoustic memory should work at some other period then 10 second, otherwise I'd be killed everytime I cross the road if I couldn't remember the sound of a car horn. Or the roar of a lion, otherwise we'd be extinct.

edit:

On the link posted above http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html

there is a ABX test, that I found interesting, but a little questionable, from a psichological perspective.

In the test the best score in matching the different power chords is listening large vocal ensembles, that I found obvious since we are more accustomed at human voices, since our birth, and before, rather then at music or generic sounds.

For the same psichologycal reason we note the smallest differences, at any level, acoustic, visual, etc, in our common enviroment.

Let's take an inhabitant of Amazonic Rain Forest, put him inthe middle of Times Square and ask him to recognize the different sounds or smells of the city, he'd score low. For the very same reasons we would score low in the Amazonic Rain Forest.

In the book 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' is written that in Inuit's language there are many words for 'snow', because the enviromental IS 'snow', so they categorized every slightly differences in 'snow' in order to survive in the 'snow'.

Coming back to test I think that, in order to achieve a psychologically correct result, it should be conducted in our 'natural enviromental' aka our hi-fi system in our apartment and listening to our records with someone who switch the power chords for us. It's not a case that most participants of the above test were stressed and tyred after a while, like we'd be trying to know the different sings of birds in the Amazonic Rain Forest.

Edited May 6, 2008 by porcy62

[clarke68]

It made my amp sound better after repeated listening to my suprise and was lucky to get The Cable Company to sell my that very chord for 20 bucks.

they wouldn't tell me the manufacturer of the power chord

It's probably a good, heavy gauge shielded Volex. They may be more than $20 now that the price of copper has gone through the roof.

Kevin, power chords a part, may you provide a links for this?

I was thinking about it and I found this statement pretty strange.

I mean that if human acoustic memory is only ten second, why children know their parents voice?

This is an interesting question. Here's a link that explains that "acoustic memory" is part of short-term memory, which by definition is 3-20 seconds in most people. However, I think the type of memory Kevin is referring to is technically "sensory memory" (the ability to maintain an exact copy of what is seen or heard), because that is what would be required to detect something as subtle as a difference between power cords or whatever, and it's only about 300ms.

The ability of a child to recognize her mother's voice is, I believe, something else entirely. If I'm understanding this correctly, "acoustic memory" is more the ability to remember things you hear, like what your professor just said in a lecture, and we forget all that stuff unless we transfer it to long-term memory by repetition or writing or something.

On the link posted above http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html

there is a ABX test, that I found interesting, but a little questionable, from a psichological perspective.

The objective vs. subjective argument in audio has been raging for decades, and I'm convinced at this point that no study or test of any kind, no matter how well designed, will ever end it. If someone hears something, I don't think it's possible (or even worth the time) to try and convince him that he can't.

Most of the people doing real research on hearing, perception, and the brain are on to much more important subjects than the things audiophiles geek out about.

[porcy62]

It made my amp sound better after repeated listening to my suprise and was lucky to get The Cable Company to sell my that very chord for 20 bucks.

they wouldn't tell me the manufacturer of the power chord

It's probably a good, heavy gauge shielded Volex. They may be more than $20 now that the price of copper has gone through the roof.

Kevin, power chords a part, may you provide a links for this?

I was thinking about it and I found this statement pretty strange.

I mean that if human acoustic memory is only ten second, why children know their parents voice?

This is an interesting question. Here's a link that explains that "acoustic memory" is part of short-term memory, which by definition is 3-20 seconds in most people. However, I think the type of memory Kevin is referring to is technically "sensory memory" (the ability to maintain an exact copy of what is seen or heard), because that is what would be required to detect something as subtle as a difference between power cords or whatever, and it's only about 300ms.

The ability of a child to recognize her mother's voice is, I believe, something else entirely. If I'm understanding this correctly, "acoustic memory" is more the ability to remember things you hear, like what your professor just said in a lecture, and we forget all that stuff unless we transfer it to long-term memory by repetition or writing or something.

On the link posted above http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html

there is a ABX test, that I found interesting, but a little questionable, from a psichological perspective.

The objective vs. subjective argument in audio has been raging for decades, and I'm convinced at this point that no study or test of any kind, no matter how well designed, will ever end it. If someone hears something, I don't think it's possible (or even worth the time) to try and convince him that he can't.

Most of the people doing real research on hearing, perception, and the brain are on to much more important subjects than the things audiophiles geek out about.

Claro que si Dude! But this is the audio section of a jazz forum, not a Congress of Neuroscientists about Alzheimer's disease.

BTW Thanks for the info and the bad manners. Now I have to go to save some children in Darfur.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Claro que si Dude! But this is the audio section of a jazz forum, not a Congress of Neuroscientists about Alzheimer's disease.

BTW Thanks for the info and the bad manners. Now I have to go to save some children in Darfur.

Sorry, but I don't see clarke68's posting as "bad manners". If you are referring to his last sentence, it clearly reads as sarcasm. However, maybe clarke68 should have added a

[Aggie87]

Curiously, Clarke types very similarly to Greg...

[clarke68]

Claro que si Dude! But this is the audio section of a jazz forum, not a Congress of Neuroscientists about Alzheimer's disease.

BTW Thanks for the info and the bad manners. Now I have to go to save some children in Darfur.

LOL.

I mentioned this in response to your "questionable, from a psychological perspective" comment, only to point out that there's a limit to the quality of research we can expect in this area. I don't have issues with anyone's trivial pursuits...obviously I'm interested enough in the sound of power cords to be talking about it here, and I design banner ads for a living!

[clarke68]

Curiously, Clarke types very similarly to Greg...

I assure you that I am not Greg. I'm as new to Organissimo as my post count suggests.

[porcy62]

Claro que si Dude! But this is the audio section of a jazz forum, not a Congress of Neuroscientists about Alzheimer's disease.

BTW Thanks for the info and the bad manners. Now I have to go to save some children in Darfur.

LOL.

I mentioned this in response to your "questionable, from a psychological perspective" comment, only to point out that there's a limit to the quality of research we can expect in this area. I don't have issues with anyone's trivial pursuits...obviously I'm interested enough in the sound of power cords to be talking about it here, and I design banner ads for a living!

Exactly, I just pointed out that such kind of tests are hardly 'scientific' or 'definitive', the more when one comes to investigate the mental processes, there's no general consensus among scientists.

Basically I don't buy the 'I can't measure it, ergo it doesn't exist' argument, nor the 'I can hear it, ergo it exists' argument. That it's more or less like the old philosophical matter that people smarter then me, like Hume, Locke or Dewey, just to name a fews never solved. Actually I was only making some college level philosophy starting from power chords.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edited May 6, 2008 by porcy62

[clarke68]

Basically I don't buy the 'I can't measure it, ergo it doesn't exist' argument, nor the 'I can hear it, ergo it exists' argument. That it's more or less like the old philosophical matter that people smarter then me, like Hume, Locke or Dewey, just to name a fews never solved. Actually I was only making some college level philosophy starting from power chords.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem, and as it happens, we are in complete agreement on the matter. There's enough interesting observations and bunko quackery on both sides of the subjectivist/objectivist debate to prevent me from thoroughly aligning with either camp.