Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.
Return to Propeller Head Plaza
Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded
Page: | [ 1 ] [ 2 ] |
Power cord realities and illusions
68.230.68.125 |
||
Posted on June 17, 2010 at 20:00:21 | ||
We demand a detachable power cord on our components. Why should a component designer try to isolate his system from external noise when the audiophile is so willing to do it for him? I mean let's get real some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system and upgrading power cords is a requirement to get the best sound. This is mostly a design decision, the manufacturer can slap the receptical and the back and save money on isolating the power supply. He can sell the gear for higher profits and reap the benefits of buyers believing his gear is so resolving it deserves the added expenditure. 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. But of course it does and hey why should we dis the component makers for maximizing their profits at our expensve especially when we believe the stuff we are buying needs the upgrades because it is so good. Its a joke and an embarrassment that audiophiles have been led to believe such garbage. Unfortunately it's real and not an illusion. 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. Get a clue! |
Pure nonsense on so many levels - it's not even worth responding to. N/T, posted on June 18, 2010 at 08:21:22 | |
Posts: 7181
Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006 |
N/T |
Theory is great, posted on June 19, 2010 at 07:11:08 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
Like I said one can measure... How close were the capacitance and inductance values with and without the switch between the various cables? Not sure how he would have gotten credit for such an old idea... You're missing the point. Due to the necessity of having a common ground, you are in fact comparing the sum of all the separate cable's characteristics for each and every selection. In other words, the switch is NOT comparing one cable to another. It is comparing all the cables together to all the cables together. Worthless. ...yet in informal subjective listening cable proponent’s use, none whatsoever exists. Proctored SBTs work pretty well and eliminate the continually unsubstantiated - and refuted *theory* that the boxes involve no relevant changes to the test. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have magic knobs, magic stones ... There really is no need to introduce straw men arguments to one on cables. While you have zero experience comparing power cables, many others have. A number of studios and award winning recording engineers find they offer value. Guys who have compared PCs. Perhaps you might try that some day. The first step is to acknowledge how your brain / ears work together. The second step is to avoid speculation and when a test uses some added component, one must first prove that the added component is not the cause of the (lack of) variance. rw |
Agreed, posted on June 19, 2010 at 12:20:33 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
If a difference can not easily pass a rigorous blind test then it is probably not sonically significant. Other than codec type tests where the only variable is which computer-controlled source file is played, are you aware of any double blind test ever peddled here that could be considered "rigorous", i.e. controlled and not governed by unproven assumptions? I certainly cannot. Your buddy E Brad doesn't understand the control concept, takes a Scarlet O'Hara "I'll worry about that tomorrow" approach or demonstrates a "I can't hear you - la la la la la la" stance. When every recording engineer has compared the direct feed of a recording through multiple resolutions and found Redbook lacking, why would E Brad ever consider that his test is fatally flawed? The most amusing cases of control-and-logic-failure have come from our dear departed inmate Soundmind, aka SM. Don't know if your were here before his anti-social behavior got him banned here (elsewhere as well). He was a unique combination of one part engineer (not audio at that), ten parts music listener (he had a wonderful grasp of classical music), ten parts arrogance, twenty parts pomposity and another ten parts of ignorance. The first example is his "proof" that a cable is audibly perfect: I are intelligent Obviously, SM doesn't consider that in the real world, cables interact with sources and amplifiers that aren't in a buffer loop. Obviously, SM doesn't consider that some cables reject RFI better than others when in proximity to high concentration generators, i.e. CD/SACD players. Obviously, SM doesn't understand the circular reasoning of his assumption that because all of the $2 cables in his system are perfect, that his system itself couldn't affect the outcome. Perfect and arrogant ignorance. The other example is explained in a series of deleted posts where he never addressed my observations, but used similar logical fallacies. He used two mediocre preamps, a Marantz 3800 and an H-K Citation 11 (I owned one of those myself thirty some years ago). He *determined* that both were audibly perfect because - and this is priceless - that because when he piped one of them through the other using his $2 interconnects, he couldn't tell any difference. Conclusion: both are audibly perfect! I am willing to discuss these topics with anyone who demonstrates intellectual honesty. No doubt, we will see yet another fleeting appearance of one who most does not fit that description. :) rw |
"Some time ago", posted on June 19, 2010 at 13:50:21 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
This was done some time ago, before the era of computer audio and widespread hi-res PCM recordings Is that how you would characterize 2007? We're all deaf rw |
Get a clue, Don, no one cares what you think is true. nt, posted on June 19, 2010 at 17:43:27 | |
Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000 |
a |
As I said. nt, posted on June 20, 2010 at 11:50:34 | |
Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000 |
a |
No editing, Pat, posted on June 21, 2010 at 06:37:36 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
Comparing same content of live mic feed vs. recordings at various resolutions, i.e. DXD, 24/192, DSD, 24/88, Redbook, etc. Example Another One from Tony rw |
Precisely, posted on June 21, 2010 at 08:44:56 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
That is a different situation and not what Meyer and Moran tested. Comparing the original feed is the real world, not some contrived attempt at duplicating the real world. Stan Ricker said: "The signal from the digital sounds exactly the same as what we heard coming from those transformerless Schoeps microphones." Of course, the Soundstream sampled at 48 kHz, not 44.1 kHz. Obviously, his opinion changed when he had access to higher resolution: Here with Meitner "I have to admit that... "...the tape which was, I believe, 96 K, 20-bit from a Nagra certainly sounds better than the CD that came from that recording." I have also heard a direct feed from the original Soundstream recorder when I participated in the ASO recording of the Firebird. The fact is that the SACD and DVD signals were passed through a 44.1 kHz DAC and were not distinguished by the audiophiles taking the tests run by Meyer and Moran Yep, that is what happens when you assume a $250 player is audibly perfect. According to E. Brad Meyer, "no one can tell when an ABX box is in the circuit." Fine. Provide the details of the control tests he ran in order to verify that assumption. I've never seen that done before. rw |
The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt, posted on June 21, 2010 at 08:48:01 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
rw |
The challenge with theory, posted on June 21, 2010 at 09:11:34 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
is that one is limited by a set assumptions that can omit causal factors. Theoretically, given the size of the power distribution system, except for the absence of, should not make the kind of difference that would be revealed in this kind of test. The "miles and miles" argument misses the relevant points. Here is some commentary from near ten years ago from an engineer who used to work at GamuT Ole's comments Perhaps all of the award winning recording artists, engineers and audiophiles who have used aftermarket cords for years are just experiencing mass hysteria. Or... rw |
I give up :) -nt, posted on June 22, 2010 at 11:29:34 | |
Posts: 37656
Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002 |
rw |
I can - and you cannot. What test in the world would change that? N/T, posted on June 22, 2010 at 13:08:46 | |
Posts: 7181
Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006 |
N/T |
I care! nt, posted on June 22, 2010 at 13:23:19 | |
Posts: 600
Joined: June 4, 2002 |
/ |
Page: | [ 1 ] [ 2 ] |