How can power cords make a difference?

Jordan, the musicians did not test the cords blindly. They knew exactly what they were using. Please see my post in this thread dated May 4th. My friend was using the cord, and was happy. A recording session went REALLY well. Later, he switched back to the stock cord and was playing and seemed to be in a funk for a few days. Something just didn't sound right. Was it his playing, did he need new strings, etc.? He decided to try the cord I gave him again. Instantly, everything snapped back to what he had grown accustomed to. He then tried the copper cord, and gave the silver one to his bandmate. Then, they switched. After a week or two, these two guys who belonged to the "wire is wire" philosophy were cable converts. Not only were they able to determine that the better cords bested their stock cords, they were able to describe in detail why they preferred the sound of the silver cord over the copper one. In fact, their descriptions completely mirrored those of us audiophiles who are partial to silver. It was superior to copper in terms of detail, microdynamics, immediacy, speed, and presence(the word they keep going back to). For these guys, the quality of silver more than offsets the quantity of copper. So, I am sorry but the improvement in a power cord over a stock cord is most definitely not just a function of larger conductors.

stevemj, in yer second post to this thread, ewe say it all, & i'm sure everyone who feels power cords make a sonic difference wood agree w/ewe. you say:

"...If your Purist cord does improve the sound it is because of some phenomenon outside the known laws of science..."

NO KIDDING!!! so stop denying what others hear, yust cuz yer science is so INADEQUATE!!! is yer science's INADEQUACY why yure so afraid to listen yerself?

jordan, in yer recent post, ewe yump all over kitch29, saying:

"Your lack of knowledge of science, electronics, audio, the definition of a theory, EVERYTHING that you mention in your diatribe is so staggering as to be beyond comprehension. The number and magnitude of fundamental errors in your post is truly frightening"...."You'd be wise to take a beginning science or engineering course, and get at least a modicum of understanding (rather than just pretending to) before spewing forth as you just did. It's really quite embarrassing."

the only ting frightening or embarrassing is yer response to his post. basically, all he's saying is what stevemj said, only it took him a bit longer... ;~)

i suggest *ewe* wood be wise to go thru his post & refute each of his "fundemental errors" one-by-one, before condemning what he says in such an off-hand, non-descript, rhetorical & rude fashion.

doug s.

Thank you Trelja for relating your experience. These musicians went into this test with healthy scepticism, and were drawn closer to the performance by the (unexpected) improvement.

This appears to be identical to what many of us experience with pre recorded media in our audio systems. In either case, getting closer to the music is an experience that you won't give up, once you have a taste.

Doug will be pleased to know that JHunter did apologise, thank you JH. I understand why scientists get so excercised about attacks on their understanding of the physical world: at the trade schools like M.I.T and CalTech, they don't get any philosophy or literature to broaden their understanding of reality. Newton and Descartes called themselves "natural philosophers", an appelation more in line with attempting to find the causes of observed effects. The natural philosophers had a better grasp of their limitations.
Today, "scientists" are trained to "believe" in "physical laws". If you can measure it, it's true.
Textbooks discuss things like the "discovery" of the electron but no one's seen an electron, only the tracks they leave. But electron theory explains those tracks and so there is science until Schrodinger, Planck and Heisenberg come along and stumble across "quanta" which behave differently. So they invent quantum mechanics that explains that behavior within the confines of existing electron theory. The math works,the observable phenomena conform to the math and once again we have "science". What we don't have is fact, only theory.
Now theory is a wonderful thing. Electron, or Quantum Theory is really good at predicting things that can't be seen or otherwise verified. But Theory by it's very nature is open-ended and that's why it's valuable. When theory becomes a belief system, that's when things get messy and natural philosophers become techies. Or as I like to call them, acolytes.
Now, while us Audiogoners were slinging electrons at each other, 2 Israeli teenagers, a 4 month old Palestinian and lot's of others were killed over a belief system. That's cause for anger. Kinda puts power cords in perspective, yes?
It also makes you wonder what this discussion would be like if we are all in a room instead of safely ensconced behind our keyboards?
I do heavy, physical work all day. Anybody wanna fight?

Thank you for your comments Albert. You are quite correct. My friend was sceptical, and his bandmate had no idea at all about wire. His feeling was that there were no gains to be made via something like this. Now, both are not only believers, but unwilling to give up these gains. My friend has been opening his eyes to our hobby(and how to merge it into pro audio) to the point where he may just join me at the Hifi show in New York City this weekend. I call that a metamorphosis. I only wish the nonbelievers or "flatlanders"(I told you that they are anything but objective to me) would open their ears and minds to the differences brought about by wire(and analog, and electronics, and tubes...). Perhaps all they need to do is to go out and listen.