|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.32.160.56
In Reply to: RE: Power cord realities and illusions posted by Don Till on June 17, 2010 at 20:00:21
Could you explain how you have reached that conclusion? I can't find a single post where anyone here has claimed that. I'll give you the opportunity to explain, but I have a suspicion that it is a strawman that appeared due to some faulty logic.
"I might concede that such an option should be available but I can't for the life of me think such an option, ie. an upgraded power cord, should make a difference in most situations."
Well, there you are. The option should be available, as you concede. I can't think of any component that doesn't come with a power cord, and that cord is usually fine for many situations (just as you suggest). What's wrong with giving someone the option of an alternate for those situations where it might make a difference (as your statement also acknowledges is possible)? Even then, it isn't usually the case that the amp manufacturer is making money from the guy who buys an "upgraded" power cord.
Here's another side (one that your EE side might be able to delve into). Ask yourself this: why do desktop computer manufacturers provide the very same option?
"I just wish audiophiles had a better handle on this issue than the more resolving means more noise crap some of you have been spewing around here for years."
Where do you get this stuff? "More resolving means more noise????" If you think that is what Tony was stating in the entertaining thread below, then you either truly don't understand what you read, or you choose to be ignorant. Personally, I think it is both: even if you could understand it, I think you would still choose not to.
Follow Ups:
Can you guess who this is from?
"Too bad the "high resolution system" owners have such low
resolution ears & prefer lower resolution speakers
------------------------------
"Low resolution hearing" reflected by public demonstrations of their
claimed listening skills under controlled liostening conditions (brand
names hidden and A-B volumes matched).
'My equipment is better than your equipment' is the quip of an ignorant
audiophile with big-ego issues. The sound quality of audio equipment is
much more than a high price -- sound quality and resolution are strongly
influenced by room acoustics (the most important component of all) and
speaker locations/listener location within a room.
All other things equal, near field speakers will provide more resolution
than distant speakers, and good headphones can provide the best possible
resolution ... but most audiophiles prefer the lower resolution sound of
distant speakers."
The RBNG Auto-bot momentarily returned....;)
Mmmmm, I too have read a fair number of posts along the line of: 'If you can't hear the differences between powercords then your system lacks resolution.' Beyond a general insult I suspect that a particular aspect of performance is lodged in the mind of the writer, but there it lies, unrevealed to the rest of us. Just WHAT is being resolved and is there any reason to think that the power cord must make a difference? So sadly DT isn't just inventing it.
Perhaps it isn't obvious to everyone that they shouldn't matter as long as they can deliver the power. Which of course doesn't mean that they don't matter, merely that they shouldn't. The crux of the matter is that home audio systems are poorly specified and controlled so no one can really say if something is working good enough or not because 'good enough' is an unknown.
Rick
I was criticizing Don's butchery of logic in both this post as well as in twisting Tony Lauck's comments below into something far from what was actually said.
"I too have read a fair number of posts along the line of: 'If you can't hear the differences between powercords then your system lacks resolution.' "
Yes, I have as well. But that is NOT what Don keeps writing. Here's what he wrote: "some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system."
Don has this a bit screwy. "Susceptibility" signifies nothing other than "susceptibility." As Tony and others have stated clearly in the thread below, SOME systems can be susceptible to external noise. They certainly don't need to be "high resolution" to be susceptible. All of Al McHogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Al McHogan.
The rest of what you say, well, I'm with you!
"Yes, I have as well. But that is NOT what Don keeps writing. Here's what he wrote: "some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system." Don has this a bit screwy. "Susceptibility" signifies nothing other than "susceptibility."
I agree with your statement about susceptibility but I think he's right and that some people DO think sensitivity to cables is indicative of a highly resolving system and not being one of them that he's trying to disabuse them of that notion. Which is hard because they are sort of right in that if something in the system is working poorly enough that it dominates the performance more subtle things get lost. I've only read parts of the thread and may have missed the gestalt, will correct that.
Absolutes rarely reflect the situation. Al McHogan has no brain activity but he's still beating and breathing. Is he dead or just a politician?
Rick
"I agree with your statement about susceptibility but I think he's right and that some people DO think sensitivity to cables is indicative of a highly resolving system and not being one of them that he's trying to disabuse them of that notion."
Rick, he didn't say what you think he said. If he had, I'd have no real bones to pick with him. He said, "...some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system."
Mote that he did NOT say "sensitivity to cables." He said "susceptibility to external noise." Those two things are hardly the same. One makes sense, the other is nonsense.
"Mote that he did NOT say "sensitivity to cables." He said "susceptibility to external noise." Those two things are hardly the same. One makes sense, the other is nonsense. "
OK. Look, I'm not currently (or voltagely) very knowledgeable about audiophile power cables. I haven't noticed much affect from power cables but haven't looked very hard either so my own experience is a null. However I've read enough on AA to know that there is much concern that they may radiate, receive or reflect noise and RFI both incoming and outgoing. I'm convinced that it's established in the minds of many that cable performance and 'noise' are correlated and so I see no conflict in Don's statements.
One of the things that I believe (and I believe that Don believes) is that in general issues of the power cables affecting equipment performance are best addressed at the equipment end with the exception of perhaps using shielded cables to reduce electrostatic coupling to signal cables.
When it comes right down to it, unless we start measuring what's going on the whole argument is bootless. In some systems power cables may be a factor due to their effect on noise coupling, in others they may be a factor due to their impedance interacting with the rectifiers, in others they may not be a significant factor at all as long as they get the AC to the device.
Stereo systems are SYSTEMS yet at the component level the interfaces are inadequately specified to insure them playing well together. Messing with the cables is unfortunately the main tool available to most users to try and make possibly disparate items into a whole. But they are an especially poor place to work on most power related issues in my book.
Rick
I agree with most of what you write. You need to step back from the technical conversation about systems and cables and noise and analyze the meaning of Don's statement again: "I mean let's get real some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system..."
This sentence means: "Some people believe that a system is high-resolution IF that system is susceptible to external noise." That is pure nonsense. No one on this forum has made that claim. It has, however, been stated that resistance to external noise is not a prerequisite for a system to be high-resolution, as some system installations are not subject to external noise (for example, I have a battery-powered system in a cabin in Maine where there aren't any microwave ovens or cell phones. Not that it is "high-res," but there aren't external noise issues as part of the total system (equipment plus physical context).)
I have been laughing at the logical mash-up of Don's recent posts, not necessarily their implied content.
When it was said that to be considered high-res a system didn't have to be resistant to the effects of external noise, Don reinterpreted that to mean that a system HAD TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE to exterior noise to be high-res. Do you see that interpretive accident?
Don has constructed a strawman either through his neglect of the basics of logic, or through willfully twisting words to draw for himself an easier target. He does a great disservice to Tony with his falsely-based attacks below, and he does a great disservice to the value of the debate here, as he fabricates an opponent where there is none, and constructs an impediment to rational discussion where there should be none.
of two different amplifier brands: Bryston and Pass Labs. Bryston has always been known as cable insensitive given its pro leanings, but previously produced some typically lower resolution hard sounding AB amplifiers. With the latest batch of products like the 28B, however, they are beginning to get the resolution thing. Pass Labs and Nelson Pass in particular, has always focused on simple, high quality topologies known for producing high resolution output. Only recently, however, has his designs been more stringent in the power supply noise rejection issue caused by RFI.
The two products have converged from opposite priorities.
rw
Well, OK. I suspect what makes the logic tortured is the lack of shared understanding of what 'resolution' and 'noise' mean.
Guess it beats arguing about DBT's...
Rick
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: