I've heard a few power cord demonstrations and it is really easy to hear the difference between the hardware store IEC cords and even modestly priced specialized power cords. I've only heard a few comparisons within a brand line between expensive and ultra expensive cords, and the only one where I was quite impressed with the ultra-expensive cord was a NBS demonstration involing their Black Label cords. The Black Label sounded considerably more dynamic, and I liked that result in the particular system used for the demonstration, but, I have no idea if that particular effect comes with negative consequences in a different system (it is all about tuning/compatibility).
The most recent demonstration I heard was one done by the Isotek people. They demonstrated a $400 cord against the hardware store cords, then, using their chord, they added in their various power conditioning boxes. I ended up buying two Isotek conditioners which come with this cord, and upgraded the power cord feeding one conditioner with their more expensive power cord. Decent power cords and conditioning make a substantial difference.
One of the most impressive demonstrations I've heard involved a comprehensive system for grounding equipment. It is the system developed by Nordost. The before and after sound employing the grounding scheme was quite impressive. I was particularly surprised because I generally don't like Nordost interconnects and power cables. |
larryi,
I have been to many such demonstrations, and not once, has the demonstration ever been blind. In fact, what is being demonstrated is clearly indicated, usually accompanied by not so subtle hints at what the sonic differences are. If a blind test is a more significant step up from a sited test, then doing that is one significant step down from even a blind test as you have both the presenter begging the answer, and peer pressure on top.
Hardware store IEC cords are often 18awg, maybe 16awg, while good, but not very expensive shielded cords targeted at instrumentation are $10's of dollars, not hundreds.
|
11-25-2019 3:43pmmahgister,
prof
There is some objective collective truth in sound perception, but musical perception is more complex than just sound perception and taking into account the different genetic potential of each one of us and our own different individual listening history, it is impossible and illusory to reduce this individual history to some objective collective laws of hearing...
I find your writing on these subjects to be unclear as you seem to conflate separate issues: that of musical appreciate, or personal reaction to music, vs the question of the actual *audibility* of any particular technical claim.
To take a hypothetical example, if a cable manufacturer claims they have reduced the presence of a distortion that occurs in the frequency of 25kHz which therefore produces a "better sounding cable," that’s a claim that does not require all this personal musical history mumbo jumbo to investigate. Right off the bat there is reason to be skeptical, given the well known *general* limits to human hearing. So right off the bat it would make sense to ask for evidence we can even HEAR the problem being claimed.
You could claim all you want to hear above 20kHz, but no appeal to your musical history will suffice to wave away a hearing test that shows you can not, in fact, reliably detect the presence of anything above 18kHz.(And such tests are of course done blind, so you are not given visual cue, or information, as to when the tones are playing...reducing those variables to concentrate only on what you are actually detecting via your hearing).
The same goes for the fundamental question "Does cable A actually ’sound’ delectably different from cable B?"
So, take a possible blind test one could conduct between an audiophile AC cable and a standard "came with the device" audio cable. Let’s say we want to investigate the AUDIBILITY (forget preference...lets first establish if A and B are even delectably different!) of an audiophile cable on a DAC.
And let’s say this audiophile cable - the "audiophileWOW cable" was purported by others to obviously improve the sound of a well known DAC. Maybe you have even "heard" it do exactly that, with that DAC.
How to test this more rigorously? (*caveat: a double-blind set up would be even better, but even a single-blind test goes far further to reducing variables than the average "stick it in my system and listen" version used to anecdotally vet claims in hi-end audio).
You could have two samples of the same DAC, both outputting to a switcher (pre-amp, whatever), so you can switch between the signal coming out of either DAC. First you do a blind test (e.g. someone else switching in a way you, the subject, can not know which DAC you are hearing), to first determine if you can reliably detect any difference between the two DAC units (again, the same DAC model), using this switching method. Presuming you can not, the inference being they sound alike to you as one would expect, you can move on to introducing the audiophile AC cable in the test. Just have one DAC unit using the supplied AC cable it came with, the other is now using the audiophileWOW AC cable.
Now, repeat that same blind test.
Can you even DETECT a difference between them to a statistically reliable degree?
If not, if the results mirror a similar randomness as when they each had the same stock AC cable, then you’ve failed to show any positive correlation of sonic changes brought to the table by the audiophileWOW AC cable. Which is suggests that you really can’t hear a difference. (Do enough of these tests, and you can establish ever more confidence that you can not hear a difference. Do it with enough people, and you gain ever more confidence that there is no audible contribution made by the audiophileWOW cable.
None of this has to do with "personal musical history," it’s about investigating the question of audibility, just like we do with hearing tests.
But once components are established to actually sound different, then preference can play a plausible role, and it makes sense to talk about "which sonic presentation you like more" and for what reasons, how it effects your reaction to the music, etc.
Reducing that to an A/B/X test
Which is a strawman. No one suggests that we simply reduce music listening to A/B/X tests. It’s just a more concise tool for investigating whether sonic differences are detectable or not. It can be expanded to preference-testing, if you like. But it’s just conflating issues to mix up all this "personal musical history" stuff with a much narrower goal.You are making the typical audiophile exception for your hobby, as if the lessons of science, useful in most other areas, just don’t apply to audio.It’s special pleading.
I am perfectly ok with your post...I understand your concern and perhaps,i forget that this thread is about comparing costlier cables , then these context must appeal to some very rigourus testing for sure...I apologize if my posts where beside the subject .... My point is only motivated by my experience with my old hears but experimented ears, very ordinary but educated hearing, and the evidence that my audiophile journey gives me... |
Give me a T. Give me an R. Give me an....
What’s that spell?! What’s that spell?!
|
atdavid
Hardware store IEC cords are often 18awg, maybe 16awg, while good, but not very expensive shielded cords targeted at instrumentation are $10's of dollars, not hundreds.
>>>>>That’s gold, Jerry, gold! Question to atdavid, do you have a logical fallacy generator on your computer or do you make these things up yourself?
|
