The Truth About Power Cords and there "Real" Price to Performance


This is a journey through real life experiences from you to everyone that cares to educate themselves. I must admit that I was not a believer in power cords and how they affect sound in your system. I from the camp that believed that the speaker provided 75% of the sound signature then your source then components but never the power cord. Until that magic day I along with another highly acclaimed AudioGoner who I will keep anatomist ran through a few cables in quite a few different systems and was "WOWED" at what I heard. That being said cable I know that I am not the only believer and that is why there are so many power cord/cable companies out there that range from $50 to 20-30 thousand dollars and above. So I like most of you have to scratch my head and ask where do I begin what brand and product and what should i really pay for it?

The purpose of this discussion to get some honest feed back on Price to Performance from you the end user to us here in the community.

Please fire away!


 


blumartini
@thyname

I don't listen to those poor souls. Sad that they were not allowed to play with others subject to misbehavior. There negative cry for attention is the demonstration of the lack of.

Carry on man, no body really is interested in their party of 1 antics lol.

P.S. Alright I will admit that a few comments have cracked me totally up lmao:)


thyname
But maybe someone is brave enough to step forward...

>>>>You’re too late. Someone already stepped forward. 🚶🏻

geoffkait18,508 posts
11-26-2019 12:53pm
thyname
But maybe someone is brave enough to step forward...

>>>>You’re too late. Someone already stepped forward. 🚶🏻
Not what he asked
atdavid
While ideally the test would be double blind, that is not always a viable thing to do.
Quite so! Conducting a controlled test with the goal that it will be scientifically valid is a tricky business. It’s time-consuming, tedious and cumbersome, so not likely to be fun for most audiophiles. I’m sure that’s one reason such tests are uncommon in our community.
There are two biases, subject bias and observation bias. Single blind removes subject bias, which is usually the dominant bias. While double blind is the "gold standard", single bias is still used as it eliminate subject bias, and provides significantly more statistically relevant results. To suggest this is no more valuable than sighted tests shows a gross ignorance w.r.t. this type of testing.
Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t allow potential bias to creep into a test, and then excuse the bias by proclaiming that isn’t the "dominant" bias, whatever that is. The test you describe is a sighted test, and subject to whatever flaws such tests might include.

That’s especially so in this instance, where you’ve acknowledged that the tester will have to "lie" to the subject about whether he might be hearing the A or B component. The tester’s bias - or even his personality traits - can poison the test. For example, the tester may reveal a "tell" (as a poker player would call it) that could be even unconsciously detected by the test subject, thereby influencing his responses. And that’s why I said that your partially-sighted test has no advantage over a fully sighted test - bias can affect results either way.

If you want to conduct a scientific test, you have to control for as many variables as possible. This is science 101; there’s no disputing this basic stuff. I think it’s rather odd that some of those who clamor most loudly for scientific listening tests have such poor understanding of what’s involved. Perhaps that’s why they are so confounded that controlled tests are so rare: They think such testing is simple and straightforward, while nothing could be further from the truth.