Went back in time and found your post at #64.
From what I gather from that post, Lab Gruppen had to change the power cord mainly for marketing reasons. It did not influence output power. So, what is the point you are trying to make?
vac
Wow, that has got to be one the wittiest posts I have ever read.
I thought the topic of this thread was 'How do power leads make a difference to sound'
Not 'what is the reason that expensive power chords sound better.'
I don't think many people on this thread have intimated that expensive power chords sound better. However, there has been some good discussion as to why power leads might sound different.
By distorting the topic you are deliberately manufacturing a scenario which enables you to articulate your own set of prejudices rather than contribute to any meaningful debate.
Eloquently stated. I'm not sure it fits him entirely though..
The comment was witty, yes. He does need to understand what any number raised to the power zero is, of course.
Cheers, John
Such a very odd post from you, uncharacteristic in fact.
You know very well that my model's intent is to show system settling time as affected by line to load ratio. You also know that I've stated the equivalency between the two. And, how the t-line model demonstrates the delay cusp eloquently while lumped parameters do not.
Yet you choose to distort intent in this fashion..
Very odd. Perhaps you can explain this action?
Cheers, John
That even pros sometimes get things wrong. BTY it was post 65!
But if you read from post #1 you would have picked up a bit as to how power cords can actually make a difference and how to avoid most of the problems.Elsewhere has been presented how to build a power line filter that does not add any extra resistance.
@Mach1, jneutron and Simon7000,
"The reason why expensive power cords sound better" is actually a correct, although partial, answer to the question raised in the title of this thread "How do power leads make a difference to sound?".
It is in no way my intention to distort the topic by deliberately manufacturing a scenario which enables me to articulate my own set of prejudices rather than contribute to any meaningful debate.
Actually, the opposite is the case. I am on this site to learn from people like jneutron and Simon7000, who have a vast theoretical and practical knowledge outside my own direct area of expertise. And cables, be it interconnects, loudspeakerwire or power cords, show measurable differences, fully in line with the theoretical understanding of their behaviour. By reading threads like this one, which I have been following from the beginning, I have really deepened my understanding of these issues. And actually, it has destroyed one of the prejudices I held before, which was that a wire, is a wire, is just a perfect amplifier without gain. Under circumstances, I have become convinced that there are measurable differences between different pieces of wire, which may become audible.
I suffer from I=0, so Qp=Qr. Therefore, to dig into the question how Qr can be measured and defined, is of quite some importance to me.
vac
"The reason why expensive power cords sound better" is actually a correct, although partial, answer to the question raised in the title of this thread "How do power leads make a difference to sound?".
It is in no way my intention to distort the topic by deliberately manufacturing a scenario which enables me to articulate my own set of prejudices rather than contribute to any meaningful debate.
Actually, the opposite is the case. I am on this site to learn from people like jneutron and Simon7000, who have a vast theoretical and practical knowledge outside my own direct area of expertise. And cables, be it interconnects, loudspeakerwire or power cords, show measurable differences, fully in line with the theoretical understanding of their behaviour. By reading threads like this one, which I have been following from the beginning, I have really deepened my understanding of these issues. And actually, it has destroyed one of the prejudices I held before, which was that a wire, is a wire, is just a perfect amplifier without gain. Under circumstances, I have become convinced that there are measurable differences between different pieces of wire, which may become audible.
I suffer from I=0, so Qp=Qr. Therefore, to dig into the question how Qr can be measured and defined, is of quite some importance to me.
vac
Last edited:
Actually, I didn't state such. I liked Mach1's statement as well, but did not believe it actually applied to you.
As I said, I found the equation humourous.
There can be a lot said about wishful thinking and self-bias as causing some to believe they hear a difference, so indeed your "equation" is valid to some degree. Not equipment/EE valid, but valid nonetheless.
Simon...you have confused me....again.
cheers, jn
Last edited:
John,
Looks like we fooled em!
ES
Well, John certainly did teach me a lot.
About you, you do have your flashes of insight, and I take them for what they are worth, in this thread and others
You do stimulate thought, that is for sure. vac
Last edited:
Threads such as this should be left to wither on the vine. Making them a venue for displaying one's knowledge of the minutiae of trivial effects is self-indulgent obscurantism.
It was pointed out at the beginning of the thread that there is no substantive evidence for the existence of an effect. You only lend it credibility by discussing esoteric aspects of transmission line theory in this context.
If you wish to understand what has been discussed, please ask. Nothing I have stated exceeds the understanding of a good EE who asks questions.
Within a power cord discussion, t-line is not an issue unless there is substantial noise on the line, but that's simply an rf intrusion thing. Unbalanced audio systems with 3 prong cords have a local EMC design flaw.
Oh, btw. the t-line theory was within the context of line to load effect on the settling time at the load, and it only applied to the gross mismatch between a standard zip cord and a low z load. I simply noted that df's slap upside my head was completely out of character for him, so wished to know why.
Please understand first what you're blasting others for. Not as you have done, shoot first, then maybe ask questions.
Cheers, jn
Last edited:
Don't assume that because I say something which you might disagree with that I am having a go at you. You are not the only one who appears to believe that sub-microsecond pulses can have an audible effect. I don't spend my time on here looking for an opportunity to annoy you. In fact you may be pleased to hear that when I made my remark I had no idea who it was that I had most recently seen posting such diagrams or when that was. My memory is not that good. Thank you for reminding me that it might have been you. I could not have been "distorting your intent" because your intent was not in my mind.jneutron said:
This is not the first time that you have wrongly assumed that I am attacking you.
Fair enough.
I do not "appear to believe that sub-microsecond pulses can have an audible effect". That is a distortion of my intent.
I have never stated such a preposterous thing, so please do not attribute that to me. I have in fact, elaborated on sub microsecond anything as not audible, as well as anything below 1 to 2 microseconds, and I even question the possibility of 5 to 10 micro as audible within normal musical content. Yes, we can discern 1.5 microsecond interaural in the lab, but care must be taken in attribution of that capability in the wild.
Which is exactly why I pointed out that what you said seemed out of character given your posting history as I've seen it.
I did not assume anything, and I did not call it an attack. I merely pointed out inconsistent behaviour on your part. You have always been rather nice, this did seem out of your normal realm.
Cheers, jn
Sorry for misquoting/misunderstanding you.jneutron said:
My general point was that a number of people, maybe even the majority on here, seem to believe that the lumped approximation is invalid/inadequate even for a very short audio cable. Having stated that I do accept the lumped model, I half expected someone to pop up and disagree and show a plot to 'prove' their point. It didn't occur to me that someone might regard that as being not nice. If someone had popped up with such a plot I would have been amused rather than annoyed.
Sorry, I'm confident I jumped the gun...my apologies.
I also believe the lumped approximation. However, it does not provide a good feel for what happens with the load mismatch. T-line does do so, as it is very clear the cable z vs load z. Given just the lumped numbers, one has to do a sim to determine if a specific C and L has minimal delay. It's not obvious by inspection at least to me. Using the cable z, that's obvious to me.
What really suprises me is that you didn't coment on that variable lightspeed thread post about moving the wire vs moving the magnet. I eventually couldn't let it pass. That poster's an interesting one, no?
Cheers, jn
The reason I didn't comment on the magnet/wire issue is that the OP doesn't seem to want to engage in a debate. He just keeps moving the goalposts. He also has form in that area. I decided after a while that in that thread I would only respond, if at all, to sensible comments or genuine puzzlement from others. The other issue is that it is over 30 years since I was active in theoretical physics so I have forgotten a lot of detail.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.