hospital grade or commercial grade receptacles ?

Irvrobinson, I find it interesting that someone with no posting history listed should jump into Saki70's question the way you have. I also find your contributions to this thread in no way useful. You're arguing from theory with no experimentation. So, I will repeat, I totally agree with everything Albert has said above. If you'd like to engage in some informed dialog here on this topic in this forum, I suggest you do some experimentation and then share your listening observations which may confirm or bring into question your assertions. Until then, I'm going to put you into my TROLL classification because that behavior is all that I'm seeing from you in this thread. Much of what you're arguing has been discussed endlessly on Audiogon; read some of the archives and try a few things for yourself or partner with someone who is willing to help you listen for what they hear.
.

This has been a typical degenerating discussion from the those who claim to be from the "scientific perspective" who claim without measurement that there is no difference among components or wire because of several perspectives. Either it "just cannot be", Irvrobinson above; "others have to demonstrate it "scientifically;" or "science theory precludes it." On the other side are those who say they hear a difference and therefore there is a difference. Usually they say one of several things: measurement of differences apart from what one hears falls short of being complete; they don't care what measurement might say and that they are happy with their choice; or that the objectivists "just cannot hear" or "don't have a sufficientlly resolving system to hear the differences." There also is the suggestion that the objectivists are resentful as they don't have a pot to piss in.

If there is no agreement on how the hypothesis that wires don't make a difference is correct, this dispute cannot be resolved. There is no agreement on evaluating it. Therefore 100 years from now, it will continue.

Rushton,
Now, that was a perfect response to Saki70's question. I think that was what he was looking for. For the record, what you suggested was exactly the route I took when I began working on my listening room. I have used the "Porterports" and every other application you laid out in your post, with the exception of the Walker SST, which is on my "to do" list. I don't know nothin' 'bout no science involved but I can tell you that I do hear a difference from the "before" to the "after".

Setting all the arguments aside, If the user is willing to experiment with these tweaks and is willing to hear the difference, and does hear the difference, then THAT is all that matters. Power issues are part of the synergy of the complete system package. And in the end, the only one who needs to be satisfied, is the owner of said system.

Albertporter...OK I will try again.

I am not talking about component specs describing audio quality.

I am not talking about measurements of the electrical signal describing audio quality.

All I say, which no rational person can deny, is that a loudspeaker's sound is completely defined by the electrical signal applied to it, as processed by the particular loudspeaker's sonic signature. If the identical electrical waveform is applied to the speaker two times the sonic output is identical, and we don't have to actually listen to the sound to know that. As a result of this the EXISTANCE of any sonic effect due to a tweek, including outlets and power cords, can be determined objectively by observing the signal waveform.

EXISTANCE. EXISTANCE. EXISTANCE. I say nothing about whether any sonic effect is good or bad. IF, IF, IF, the electrical waveform does change THEN THEN THEN it is time ro roll up your superb system and give a listen.

Irv, for someone who hides behind a curtain of science (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) and has distain((???) do you mean disdain) for anyone who who uses the scientific means of proving something, you certainly are critical of science. As I pointed out the scientific method of proof, is one which is observable, and repeatable. No, I am not a scientist, but I did get A's and B's in two years of college physics.

The ability to measure results has nothing to do with their validity. Albert is right when he points out that there are things around us every day that everyone accepts without question that cannot be measured or even understood.

The strangest thing about science, and people who claim to be conversant in scientific theory is that people who are doing 'cutting edge' research are far less dogmatic about any scientific theory than thier less knowledgable counterparts in the educational or business world.

If Albert and thousands of others have conducted the scientific experiment of replacing PC's, outlets, and/or cables and expereinced an observable, and repeated result, whose, experience has greater validity? The one who lectures from the lab table, or the one who conducted the experiment, and observed the results.

I'm with Psychic on this one!