Blind Power Cord Test & results


Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity teamed up with the Bay Area Audiophile Society (BAAS) to conduct a blind AC power cord test. Here is the url:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

I suppose you can interpret these results to your follow your own point of view, but to me they reinforce my thoughts that aftermarket AC cords are "audiophile snakeoil"
maximum_analog
Also, in future threads, subjective discussions should not be interrupted by contrarian physical explanations and vice-versa.

This is a misconception. These threads get onto the question of "what's real/what's in our heads" because people begin offering totally nonsensical explanations for how cables/tweaks/PCs/etc. work, and others pointed out their errors. Now, maybe you think Audiogon is served by a rule that says, only *incorrect* technical explanations may be posted. But when I say something wrong (and I do), I want to be set right, because that's how we all learn.
There is a logical train of reasoning going on here. We hear a repeatable thing, and look for reasons why it is a repeatable thing. But, just because we have not found many reasons why yet, is no cause to dismiss it.

My link to the Bumblebee story
http://www.pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble/index-gifd.html

This is not "religion" or anything like it. It is simply another case where the scientists have not produced much proof to explain a valid repeatable observation. But they have produced some, and even that small bit of proof(differences in resistance, impedance, capacitance, dielectric) shows that there can be some differences that will be audible.

Is this must be the new "scientific" game? "If an easy answer isn't apparent, it must be psychological."?

Just like the bumblebee story shows, scientists don't know everything, never knew everything, and are not likely to ever know everything. Evidently, there are some who think they do.

As I posted earlier, member Aball has written on another thread about a French and German scientific consortium who is studying this very subject, and have already found some things that can be measured, and can further explain why we hear differences. These are hardware measurements, not psycho-acoustic measurements. They have found some kind of "micro-corona" effects around wire which is measurable, and they have produced some kind of measuring device to quantify it. I don't know much about it, but at least someone is doing something about it.

I don't much care about it myself, since I can easily hear the things needed for me to make an informed decision. However, for some who can't trust their ears, and have to lean on numbers for their audio purchasing, this may be helpful.
Psychics don't have to guess numbers to be psychics. That would just be a game--and there are more important things to be done helping people.

You guys need to see a good clarvoyant psychic to find out what can he/she tell you...whether reading the cards, shells, tobacco smoke--you name it.

Whith psychic power and primal intensity,

***
Dragon1952...You also, and others still miss the point about the ROLE of a scientific explanation of physical effects. I will say it another way.

Not everything requires an exact explanation. (Don't misquote me!). I believe in Gravity, even though its explanation is imperfect.

If I believe, based on listening and science, that some audio tweek doesn't, and cannot possibly, work, a hundred people saying it does won't have much luck convincing me. But if one guy can show me HOW it functions then I cannot deny that it works.
Pabelson I love discussions/arguments about technical discussions. I also believe some number of technical explanations marketed by companies are BS and deserve scrutiny. What I was thinking of were technical discussions where a subjective counterpoint is introduced stating that everyone is being cheap and also the the lame "its all in your head" one-liners when posters are discussing their listening experiences with tweaks, cables, etc.