Blind Power Cord Test & results

Both long term listening and A/B comparisons are an attempt to decide if there is a difference and if that change is worth implementing on a permanent basis. For those who don't trust themselves or NEED A/B testing (for whatever reason), I say go for it.

I always know what is being changed because I do my own testing, usually with a group of friends who vote on the results.

Many times the outcome is not what any of us expected, so the learning process remains intact and we all evolve our systems based on priority and what we can afford.

The topic of A/B is banned at Audio Asylum and I understand why. These discussions (particularly blind A/B discussions), typically follow the same evolution as this thread. Pointless arguments that do nothing to improve our systems.

Albertporter...As I am sure you know, there is another explanation for why audiophiles dislike A vs B, and why it is banned at AA.

Well, since it is easy to determine what differences are audible in cables, whether you use A/B, long term listening, or whatever, then use whatever method you want to, and get the cables you want.

What is so hard about this?

I never have any difficulty hearing the differences, whether I'm looking, or blind, or otherwise. It's simple. Why people make such a big deal about this is beyond me. There's nothing difficult about it. If a difference is heard, then there is a difference. If the difference isn't much, or doesn't seem to justify the price difference, then don't buy it. Is this too hard to understand?

If you like blind tests, then use them. If you like long term listening tests, then use them. However, I would caution that most cables DO have a break-in period(whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it is scientifically based and measureable, due at least to dielectric changes), and the cables should be allowed to have some time on them to make an honest decision. My favorite method is to take some time in listening so that the cable has at least 200 hours of break-in time. Then while listening to the same material, I take notes of likes and dislikes. I then go back to the reference set of cables and allow them to settle in and compare notes. Time will tell.

Have fun and enjoy your cables in your system.

I was part of the panel for this test. My personal results--the number of times I correctly identified if X was A or B--were dismal, and it sort of left me depressed to tell you the truth. I believe the methodology was sound. At any rate, I was satisfied with it. Please remember that the object was NOT to choose which cable we preferred, it was only to see if we could correctly identify an audible difference--we heard A, then B, then X. Was X=A or was X=B. When I make cable changes at home, this is a no-brainer. The differences are IMMEDIATELY apparent, although my long-term preference may not be.

The ABX testing procedure may be flawed, but I can not dismiss the test results out of hand because they do not support my day-to-day experience as an audiophile. Nor will I abandon the hobby. I just want to know what is true. As much as the error may lie with the testing methodology, it may also lie in the ways we normally listen to components. It may be that our eyes and our brand perceptions and all of our other expectations contribute more to what we hear than we realize or care to admit. I choose to keep an open mind about this. Your mileage may vary.

By the way, I just recently moved from stock power cords to aftermarket cords on my Rowland monoblocks. The difference was huge! Even if an ABX test showed me that I could not realiably tell the difference between stock and pricey, I would still make the upgrade. But I'd like to know.

Not sure if it was mentioned, but the A and B in this test were generic stock cords vs. $2500 Nordost Valhalla PCs.

QUOTEIt may be that our eyes and our brand perceptions and all of our other expectations contribute more to what we hear than we realize or care to admitQUOTE

Generally speaking, of course. Not everyone is taken in by glitz and hype but unfortunately that tends to happen much too often, no doubt. Speaking for myself, and many others I'm sure, I have been pleasantly surprised in the past to prefer a much lower cost alternative. I think, as you eluded to, differences are much more evident in our own systems with which we tend to be intimately familiar with. I would not sell yourself short and certainly would not be dismayed with your performance in the test, which is most likely the least reliable in this case.