Philosophical hand waving.
Power cord hypothesis is readily tested in common reality.
So you agree that reality could be very different than what you believe? For example, maybe there actually isn't a difference in power cords.
Or does it only apply to other people?
The differences between beliefs and reality apply to all.
Maybe I hear what I hear, maybe I’m only imagining. Speculations about whether there are difference or not, as speculations on what I may hear, or not, aren’t leading anywhere – in the same way that no speculation leads anywhere.
I didn’t ask anyone to take my word for anything I write here, I encourage each and every one to try for oneself.
I’m just curious:
What is it about power cords having influence on the sound that makes some people revolt?
Is it because it shakes deep-rooted beliefs, or what?
Actual engineering understandings that support both power cord changes altering audibility, and through context, Interconnects. It is of course, geared contextually to design engineers who make the equipment you enjoy so that they can fix problems they have but were unaware of. Please ask questions of me if you wish details.
Ummmm, on this site. I do not understand your question.
jn
I have no idea who those ‘most audiophiles’ are.
Do you have any proof you wish to present to me?
I hear what I hear. What I hear isn’t right as it isn’t wrong – it’s just what I hear.
What is it that upsets you concerning power cords?
So, you have engineering understanding to the reasons that various power cords alter audibility.
I have the audible results of empirical comparisons.
I see no conflict between the two.
BTW, does your gallery have engineering understanding of why power plugs of the same manufacturer, with different coatings, have different sonic signatures?
I did not state there was conflict.
I provided engineering content in support of it happening.
Yes. One pic shows how the source return current will return to the source not by the IC shield, but will divert based on reactive paths which include the line cord and all the contacts. Note the rather low value numbers involved. Plated surfaces certainly can be part of the loop problem.
However, the actual problem is not the cords or plugs per se, but rather, a generic fault of the equipment. The equipment is sensitive to cordage as a consequence of inadequate EMC considerations during the design of the equipment layouts and internal current control.
My gallery was put up within the context of helping designers understand the issue, measure it, and subsequently control it.
jn
Last edited:
Its because the claims lack credibility and are given without even a shred of supporting evidence except the - pointless as you pointed out - subjective beliefs of the listeners. Show me a valid blind test where listeners could hear the cable (or whatever) and I will listen very closely. Spew unsubstantiated biased opinions and I'm not going to take it seriously.
So I am not "revolting", I am "revolted".
Good for you.
I’m not into proving anything to anyone, I have nothing to sell.
I don’t need any measurements in order to hear what I hear, I hear what I hear and that’s it – for me.
I shared my experience, others are free to do with my sharing whatever they may choose.
All are free to take measurements and/or to do listening evaluations of their own.
Possibly, those who have firm belief that power cords cannot possibly make any change to sound, will not bother to evaluate for themselves.
Choosing to attack others for sharing their experience is different matter. Each to ones’ own.
Joshua
That's all fine, believe what you want, share what you want, but please remember what you said about beliefs being different than reality. I'm just not a religious person. I only believe in things that can be proven and not just to myself, that's way too easy, but to a group of blind doubters. Then it's reality.
That's all fine, believe what you want, share what you want, but please remember what you said about beliefs being different than reality. I'm just not a religious person. I only believe in things that can be proven and not just to myself, that's way too easy, but to a group of blind doubters. Then it's reality.
Last edited:
My reality is that very few pieces of audio gear are designed using EMC principles such that the equipment is impervious to cordage sensitivities.
My beliefs? I believe it's happy hour time somewhere...I'm feeling very much in the need to drown some olives.
Earl, perhaps a quick look within my gallery would be of interest?
jn
It doesn't make me revolt - it makes me laugh.
The reason for the change in the "sonic signature" is a very well understood phenomenon. Its called confirmation bias.
Unfortunately, to accept this (or to even test if it is in play) may very well shake some deep rooted beliefs.
Are you prepared to be shaken?
Mr. Earl Geddes,
You can take what I hear to be beliefs or whatever you may wish to. It is up to you.
For myself, I have a very clear distinction between beliefs, assumptions, educated guesses and actual knowledge by empirical tests and evaluations.
The fact that you are convinced that my subjective impressions are mere beliefs speaks of you, not of me.
As a person who doesn’t accept anything without valid scientific proofs, please prove (even only to yourself) that my subjective impressions are mere beliefs, not real.
When you a take a firm stand about others’ reports without any valid scientific proof to that stand of yours, you live in inner contradictions. You demand from others what you don’t do yourself.
That’s excellent! Humor is very beneficial to health. Long live humor!
Is it proven scientifically, or is it a belief of yours?
Unfortunate to whom?
On what basis to you expect someone to accept your statement?
I am, willingly.
Humour is very underrated imo. But that is for a different thread.
Yes, confirmation bias is very well understood and proven. It is not a belief, its a reality. We are all subject to it and even when we think we are controlling for it or aware of it, we are still captive to it.
Unfortunate for these sorts of threads and all involved no matter where they stand in the particular subject matter since the denial of confirmation bias by any side negates any opportunity to properly test the hypothesis.
Whether you accept that or not is not an issue for me - its an issue for you. I don't really care except to say that it puts all claims you make about the performance of anything in doubt.
If you are willing to be shaken, then you need to test the hypothesis "that different power cords present a different sonic signature" in a controlled way that eliminates confirmation bias. Double blind testing is the only realistic method of doing this.
If you remain adamant that it is the other party that needs to do this (as you stated earlier, though I paraphrase), I have to call into question your commitment to being shaken.
Yes, confirmation bias is very well understood and proven. It is not a belief, its a reality. We are all subject to it and even when we think we are controlling for it or aware of it, we are still captive to it.
Unfortunate for these sorts of threads and all involved no matter where they stand in the particular subject matter since the denial of confirmation bias by any side negates any opportunity to properly test the hypothesis.
Whether you accept that or not is not an issue for me - its an issue for you. I don't really care except to say that it puts all claims you make about the performance of anything in doubt.
If you are willing to be shaken, then you need to test the hypothesis "that different power cords present a different sonic signature" in a controlled way that eliminates confirmation bias. Double blind testing is the only realistic method of doing this.
If you remain adamant that it is the other party that needs to do this (as you stated earlier, though I paraphrase), I have to call into question your commitment to being shaken.
Where is the proof?
Saying it is proved without presenting the proof is meaningless.
Also, you didn’t say under what conditions confirmation bias occur. Does it occur also when the person has no prior expectations?
I didn’t ask anyone to believe anything I say.
I only wonder why you are so stirred by what I said.
It isn’t any hypothesis of mine, it is something I found out empirically. It contradicted my previous convictions on the matter. I found out what I was sure to be impossible.
Your conviction that I had any expectations about what I’d hear, before actually hearing it, is completely wrong. Your false convictions about what I did and the way I did it are anything but scientific approach. Your convictions in this case are your unproved beliefs.
The actual procedure of the DBT needs to be proved to be valid first.
There is nothing wrong in DBT in itself, however some DBT procedures are inherently flawed. Some DBT procedures mask the ability to note actual differences. DBT, without going into the details of its’ procedure is utterly meaningless.
You have no idea how I’ve done the empirical comparisons, yet you speculate about it.
Your speculations are as far from any scientific method as snake oil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.