A stupid question(s) about power cords
As the title indicates, I admit that this is probably a stupid question. But since I don’t know (for sure) the answer, I am asking it anyway.
The recent power cord thread got me interested in a power cord upgrade (from the stock cord) on my Maranzt SA10 (SACDP). The power cord receptacle on that particular component does not have a male equipment ground pin--only the neutral and hot pins. Therefore the cord supplied by Maranzt is a two pole (if that is the right terminology) cord. But because I have done it this way before, I do know that it will accept a power cord with an equipment ground as well as a neutral and hot.
Question 1: I went to musicdirect and looked at some power cords and I saw one (an open box Audioquest NRG Z2) that they were calling a two pole cord. The end that plugs in to the component only has a neutral and a hot, but the other end, the end that plugs into the outlet in the wall, does have an equipment ground blade (so that end has three blades). Why would that be?
Question 2: (and this is the stupid one) if a power cord has an equipment ground pin plugged into the wall, even if it is not plugged into an eqipment ground in the component itself, that cord is still connected to the neutral bus bar in the panel, right? So that being the case, since the equipment ground wire in the cord is right next to the hot wire, is there a way unwanted stuff (rf or whatever, my understanding of this is quite limited) can that dirty up the power that is traveling on the hot wire in the power cord?
I think that the answer to the last question is probably going to be ’no’? And if the answer is ’no’, that means that I really don’t need to shop for only two pole cords, right? And I see this as sort of important because if I buy a two pole cord, the ONLY component I can use it on/try it out on will be my SACDP--there will be no playing around with a two pole cord on my preamp or my amp.
And ALSO, if I don’t feel constrained to shopping ONLY for two pole cords, I would probably have more options to consider.
TIA for legitimate insight to this, and to all others, feel free to ridicule me and my question--I don’t mind.
@ghdprentice +1 Takes time and switching back and forth quickly doesn’t work. The Preffair cable is going thru a break in phase. Hopping back in for a listen late last night revealed a slightly harsh treble that I didn’t detect few hours prior listening to the same track. Not worried too much for multiple reasons. But curious how it will sound with 200+ hrs behind its belt. Pretty sure it will smooth out. |
@ghdprentice , as I have said before: I always appreciate your perspective and the way you present it.
this is interesting. Although I don't think for me it is the same thing going on as it is for you, there have been nights I have played a disc and the effect has been magical, or if not magical, at least very impacting. Then, like maybe a day or two or three or a week later I go back and I want to repeat that magical or at least impactful auditory experience with the same disc (and no changes made to the system in the mean time) and it just doesn't happen. What I heard last time is not there. It can be quite disappointing. In other words, what brought me close to aural orgasm last time, often sounds worse the next time. It could be that the musical notes do not seem as round or as full as the last time, or that the guitar work does not float in the air in front of me quite as spectacularly as I remembered from the last time, or I am not hearing the same subtle inflection in a piece of vocal work that I swear I heard the last time, or even, as you say, I hear a harsher sounding treble than I did the last time. I generally chalk this up to: a) I really was NOT hearing what I THOUGHT I heard the time before or b) the mind works in mysterious ways and I need to enjoy what sounds good to me WHEN it sounds good to me. I didn't mean to ramble on like this when I started typing this reply, but, and this is sort of unrelated, back in the mid '90s up until 9/11 I worked in a great shop (except it was a sheet metal shop, so it was often noisy) and I kept an old boom-box type radio at my work table and I listened to what I thought was a great public radio station (WYEP 91.3) because they used to play a lot of stuff that no one else played that I had never heard before and quite often I would hear something or someone and think, "That sounds great!" So then when the weekend came, I would go to Camelot Music or The Wall and buy or order the CD, and frequently it did not impress me on my system at home the way it did on that crappy boom-box radio at my work table. Oh well . . . lRamble On. . . . |
Listen, to the " musicianship " and the " composition ". Everything else will follow. Why are listeners so involved in the acoustics of the performance, rather than the performance itself. Once an instrument or voice enters a mic or a mixing console, and is then manipulated by the producers, engineers and other studio folks, all the real and lifelike nuances are lost. Listeners keep trying to maintain the tone of the instruments/voices, and the localization of the musicians. It is all fabricated. If you listen to " what " the musicians are doing, the tones and placements become secondary, and your listening life will be simpler. This is the way musicians listen, and this is the way I listen. Over the years I have tried to communicate this way of listening to people with their audio rigs, but " give me that sound stage " and I am happy. Maybe because I was a singer in my earlier years and had a wonderful coach/teacher. Maybe, because I spent some time in recording studios (when it was all analog). I feel the simplicity of listening has grown so out of proportion. Matt, talk about babbling...well I seem to do it to, ad nauseum. My rant is over...for now, lol.....Enjoy ! MrD. |
Well…you’re not the only one experiencing this. So don’t sweat it. |
@audphile1 +1 |
