Okay, thank you.
If we could keep thinking about this thing a bit more to try to understand what is going on around here in this thread, it might be useful. Maybe you know that people can compare the same wave file and a copy of the same file, with one file played .1dB louder than the other, and those people can describe how one sounds so much better than the other in various ways? They may talk about deeper bass, more punch and vitality, wider soundstage, etc.
Maybe you have seen something like that, I have for sure. Anyway, they are not crazy, they do hear a difference, and their mental experiences of hearing may be exactly as they describe. All possible, it happens sometimes. You agree or disagree?
It's true, one can normalize to a given system, and once this has occurred changes smaller than errors present in the system itself can be detected, assuming they are not masked by a similar error in the system itself.
Proper power supply design is a well-quantified science. In a well made system, there should be extremely little or no change to SQ as power cables are changed. If a change is detected, there is insufficient EMI rejection or common-mode AC line currents with other interconnected equipment, or some other problem with the equipment. This is certainly the theory, but the reality is that little attention is paid to these factors in consumer audio gear.
I have found in residential audio systems a stout power line isolator such as those designed by Richard Marsh can really clean up the noise floor by providing galvanic isolation and filtering to incoming power. Shielded, twisted conductor power cables can also offer some EMI rejection improvement over parallel unshielded conductors.
Part of the reason power systems we design for recording and broadcast studios are elaborate is to help eliminate noise floor issues due to sub-standard equipment power supplies. Given the number of audio cables interconnecting various chassis, the potential for AC to chassis-leakage currents combining with audio signals is high. Isolated grounding and balanced power as well as careful control of balanced signal shield termination are among the techniques which help to reduce these problems, but it is uncommon to find these approaches in a residence, or with consumer audio equipment.
Cheers!
Howie
What they describe hearing checks out as accurate when tested or when investigated. In the music production business such people are described by the slag term as, 'having ears.' Usually it means to have exceptionally accurate recognition of very small details.
Maybe, but most things that people can hear can be explained without resorting to quantum physics. Some kinds of noise are attributable to quantum mechanical effects, but not weird, pseudo-magical stuff. For the latter types of things there is probably just some misunderstanding of how conventional physics and human brain processing of sound pressure variations in the air can explain what is going on.
It can explain some... Everything about this Universe and science is magical. The more we dig, the more magical and complex it becomes. I doubt we know much of anything in how the ear works, how the brain processes, and psychoacoustics in general.
We learned what we know so far. It could very well be just about zero though. Holographic, simulation, nothing's real... Who knows where the rabbit hole leads.
Last edited:
Which means that buying and trying different power cables is not ignorant. It can make a difference and that difference can be for the better.
Science has at least made it possible for us to go to the moon, make a-bombs and cure cancer. To me, transmitting audio signals would seem pretty straightforward in comparison.
That sounds like a philosophical position or maybe a proposed definition of the word magic.
What makes science Science is use of the Scientific Method, and the development of mathematical models for accurately predicting the future.
Philosophically speaking, if something can be classified as science, also classifying it as magic would probably not be helpful.
ridikas, Would you like this conversation to keep rambling on in different directions, or would you like to continue with your original concern regarding the characterization of audiophiles in places in this thread? If the latter, you never responded to my last question about the very real different mental perceptual experiences that can be attributable to files differing only in level by .1dB. Would you agree or disagree that the mental experience of what some people hear could sometimes be described by them in markedly different terms than that the files have only a small loudness difference?
ridikas,
You are the one pawing the ground, looking for a fight.
You seem to be blaming everyone here for what happens to you in other places as well. If you experience the same response from everywhere around you, do you think it might be possible that its you that is wrong?
I am often in a position where I am designing, or redesigning equipment for improved sound quality (and reliability!). As I've often said, good designers use both the test equipment and their ears. Only by using both will you end up with equipment that both sounds good and is reliable. Equipment that is designed by ear only typically ends up on my bench. Then I make them reliable, which improves the sound quality most of the time. Then, I improve sound quality.
I think that an audiophile such as yourself, who don't use equipment and lack formal training feel left out because they don't understand what's really going on. So when a discussion is taking place, and you want to be part of the discussion, you assume that you don't need any equipment and that all you need are your golden ears. News flash, human beings are not walking test instruments and have a very short memory for sound. What we humans are good at is comparing two things in a short time.
I hate to break it to you ridikas, but we can often tell how something is going to sound by it's measured performance (if you know what to measure for and have the equipment). I can measure problems that friends hear with audio reproduction. It isn't unusual for me to find issues that they didn't hear. Once fixed, they can hear that "it" sounds better.
I have a friend that hears differences in power cords. I generally don't unless there are big problems with the gear. After I fix the component, power cords are no longer heard. In fact, I think he has to hear differences to justify all the expensive snake oil he has purchased. I will agree that these cords can make a difference to poorly designed (usually by ear) equipment. He agrees.
I would have to say that the average person who claims to hear differences in power cords on all kinds of equipment are grabbing at straws. Just to be part of the club and maybe justify their point of view. I do know that if I can't measure it, you can't really hear it. Remember, people with the knowledge and resources are better equipped to assess audio equipment than a layperson without any formal training or test equipment. Even John uses test equipment and always has. If you don't want to believe that, it's your problem and not the world's around you.
-Chris
You are the one pawing the ground, looking for a fight.
You seem to be blaming everyone here for what happens to you in other places as well. If you experience the same response from everywhere around you, do you think it might be possible that its you that is wrong?
I am often in a position where I am designing, or redesigning equipment for improved sound quality (and reliability!). As I've often said, good designers use both the test equipment and their ears. Only by using both will you end up with equipment that both sounds good and is reliable. Equipment that is designed by ear only typically ends up on my bench. Then I make them reliable, which improves the sound quality most of the time. Then, I improve sound quality.
I think that an audiophile such as yourself, who don't use equipment and lack formal training feel left out because they don't understand what's really going on. So when a discussion is taking place, and you want to be part of the discussion, you assume that you don't need any equipment and that all you need are your golden ears. News flash, human beings are not walking test instruments and have a very short memory for sound. What we humans are good at is comparing two things in a short time.
I hate to break it to you ridikas, but we can often tell how something is going to sound by it's measured performance (if you know what to measure for and have the equipment). I can measure problems that friends hear with audio reproduction. It isn't unusual for me to find issues that they didn't hear. Once fixed, they can hear that "it" sounds better.
I have a friend that hears differences in power cords. I generally don't unless there are big problems with the gear. After I fix the component, power cords are no longer heard. In fact, I think he has to hear differences to justify all the expensive snake oil he has purchased. I will agree that these cords can make a difference to poorly designed (usually by ear) equipment. He agrees.
I would have to say that the average person who claims to hear differences in power cords on all kinds of equipment are grabbing at straws. Just to be part of the club and maybe justify their point of view. I do know that if I can't measure it, you can't really hear it. Remember, people with the knowledge and resources are better equipped to assess audio equipment than a layperson without any formal training or test equipment. Even John uses test equipment and always has. If you don't want to believe that, it's your problem and not the world's around you.
-Chris
There are certainly cases where an audible problem with a system could modulated with a change in AC cables, and kudos to people attempting to improve their SQ, but there are two reasons why I feel a change in AC cables to address this type of problem is not the best approach:
1) If a system or piece of equipment does have an underlying EMI or common-mode current issue it is much more effective to address these issues directly. A change in AC cables may modify, but cannot eliminate EMI sensitivity of a unit's power supply nor break a common-mode current path.
2) Given the cost of some of these cables it would be better spent on addressing the root cause which can actually address the problem. Audio Advisor, for example, advertises an IEC AC cable for over $1600, and this could only potentially power one piece of equipment. The money would be far better spent addressing the actual problem of noisy AC line, or inter-chassis AC line currents with a power isolation transformer or, if a cable TV or Ethernet connection is made to the system, isolators for those connections.
This all being said it is indeed easier for consumers to merely swap a cable than it is to take other more elaborate measures, but I highly suggest AC power isolation and analyzing potential common-mode paths before other steps are taken.
Cheers!
Howie
Very (19.1) good.
Don't wait too anxiously for any omni/D&D comparison though...
It’s one of the inputs I would appreciate.
Take your time, whenever it may happen.
George
Ridikas, your statements make sense to me, but take care. These guys, whether they consciously know it or not, are trying to shut you down. They do the same thing to me if I mention any of Bybee's products, so generally I don't unless it is really important.
Yes, I agree with you that quantum mechanics is a lot more important in advanced understanding of audio quality, but don't expect these guys to do more than recite out of an old textbook on the subject.
Trust your ears, as you do, try to improve your system in any way feasible, including power cords. There are differences that I have noted that I can't explain as well. The CTC Blowtorch came with its own custom set of power cords because this was audible to my business partner at the time. We originally found that just about everything matters, including power cords. I must admit that I have been rather lazy lately and not tried different power cords, perhaps I should, especially with my OPPO 105 that doesn't quite do it right yet. Thanks for the reminder.
However, Ridikas, don't let these people dissuade you or make you angry. That is what they want, so they can find an excuse to remove you from the thread.
Yes, I agree with you that quantum mechanics is a lot more important in advanced understanding of audio quality, but don't expect these guys to do more than recite out of an old textbook on the subject.
Trust your ears, as you do, try to improve your system in any way feasible, including power cords. There are differences that I have noted that I can't explain as well. The CTC Blowtorch came with its own custom set of power cords because this was audible to my business partner at the time. We originally found that just about everything matters, including power cords. I must admit that I have been rather lazy lately and not tried different power cords, perhaps I should, especially with my OPPO 105 that doesn't quite do it right yet. Thanks for the reminder.
However, Ridikas, don't let these people dissuade you or make you angry. That is what they want, so they can find an excuse to remove you from the thread.
My Benchmark AHB2 came with a hefty power cord too. From the feel of it, it might even be shielded. Most likely they found the amp met specs without it but that it might help in some locations with especially poor power (according to their careful measurements, of course).
I would also just like to observe that it seems like people who are attracted to quantum mechanical explanations for things sometimes seem to be lacking in their understanding of non-quantum mechanical physics and or neuropsychology and or cognitive psychology. They may never have heard of some of those things and or don't know a bit about them. But, they do know the words quantum and mechanics, and they seem to go for the words they know.
I would also just like to observe that it seems like people who are attracted to quantum mechanical explanations for things sometimes seem to be lacking in their understanding of non-quantum mechanical physics and or neuropsychology and or cognitive psychology. They may never have heard of some of those things and or don't know a bit about them. But, they do know the words quantum and mechanics, and they seem to go for the words they know.
Last edited:
Quantum mechanics is a very low level model for how things work at an atomic or subatomic level. Somewhere down there very small. Sometimes it is useful to go down to that small level to understand something.
At the same time, if you want to know what an elephant looks like when its walking around, etc., starting from quantum mechanics is probably not going to be very useful. you might spend your whole life trying to understand the toenails.
Basically, the process of science produces a variety of models and usually it works best for most human purposes not to invoke very low level models without some necessity. Most things can be studied, modeled, understood, predicted, etc., quite adequately with higher order models, and without overwhelming the human mind with more information that it can hold.
At the same time, if you want to know what an elephant looks like when its walking around, etc., starting from quantum mechanics is probably not going to be very useful. you might spend your whole life trying to understand the toenails.
Basically, the process of science produces a variety of models and usually it works best for most human purposes not to invoke very low level models without some necessity. Most things can be studied, modeled, understood, predicted, etc., quite adequately with higher order models, and without overwhelming the human mind with more information that it can hold.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.