You really need to look at JNeutron's gallery before you discount the possibility that changing line cords may have an audible effect. There may in fact well be reasons other than confirmation bias.
Proving actual audible changes is a different matter of course
Last edited:
The technical reasons for why something may matter are usually pretty straighforward to get a handle on. The big debate then is whether it does make an audible difference in a particular instance - and unless one has an excellently performing system in the first place then the variations may be too subtle to pick up, by most listeners ...
You may be surprised by how many people on here will deny the possibility of, say, a line cord having an effect at all, therefore not seeing the possible technical issues. I definitely agree with the proposition that changing line cords is no solution and that $3,000.00 cords are ludicrous, but to a well heeled audiophile without technical chops, who is to say what he hears as an improvement is not worth the money? You may as well be talking an alien tongue as try to convince him it would be better if he ironed out the technical flaws in his gear, he can't, so won't.
Sorry, the sites of these suppliers do not have sufficient information. I suggest you ask for more if you are serious about having more organized approach on your selection. Up to now, it seems you are just doing random mix and matches. This costs way too much for the results you can get. The list of necessary information is the minimum to make a preliminary list. In reality, the lengths of cables also make a difference to you also need to select based on a predifined length. You can spend time acquiring knowledge or you can spend money until you get what you are satisfied with. Once you are satisfied, it makes no sense to even to challenge the issue.
One reason I have intentionally left the power cords out of our development effort is that the cost and return in terms of audio improvement is not as worth the effort with current state of technology.
Last edited:
I don't need to look at anything until someone proves that there is an audible effect to the actions in question. Just to refresh, here's the op:
On my system, to my ears (and to others’ ears), different power cables and different plugs connected to those cables do make a prominent sonic difference. Moreover, power plugs of the same manufacturer having different metal coating have prominent different sonic signature. Power plugs of different manufacturer have prominent different sonic signature compared to power plugs from the first manufacturer, made of the (proclaimed) same material.
I’d love to hear an explanation for the above phenomenon.
The use of the word "prominent" implies that the effect is reasonably obvious. The OP underscores this by claiming that its not just him, others hear the same thing.
If this is the case, you'd expect this effect to be commonly understood and captured in the literature.
It's not. Any audible effect of power cords (when appropriately tested) has been found to be so minor that, if it exists at all, the chance of identifying it is the same as guessing.
Which leaves us with just three options (that I can identify):
1 - the OP and his others are an exceptional group with listening abilities well beyond those of the standard human and are identifying a phenomenon that, typically, others cannot.
2 - the known science on the subject of human perception and the issues around bias, expectation, and the other mind tricks we play on ourselves in all areas of endevour.
3 - the known science around electrical engineering which would identify that either the OP's audio equipment is seriously deficient (ie unstable) and is unable to handle very minor changes in power supply conditions and/or the selected power cords are so seriously deficient in design and execution that a competent system is unable to compensate for the shortcomings.
Pretty sure I know where I'd put money.
Go to Gallery and to the Member gallery section.
Basically it does, partially, but since it is a conceptual illustration, you may not be able to notice the relationship. But people with some basic electronics knowledge presented in most engineering courses would understand.
Have there been properly controlled tests done on the audibility of power cords?
As for the balance of your post, had you taken the opportunity to look at the material I mentioned and had a little poke around at JNeutron's posts on the topic on this and other forums you would know that indeed the effects he demonstrates are in fact understood and acknowledged at least by some. Disturbingly they do not appear to be understood by many of the people who design home audio equipment. However, if you try to look up the literature
under "power cords" you will probably draw a blank. Most home audio equipment with bonded safety grounds will suffer problems due to ground loops. Tuning those loops may well have an audible impact, though fixing the problem is a better idea.
I admit I can't prove audibility to you, but I am not at all surprised that people claim to hear differences in sound when changing power cords.
This leaves me wondering, if someone did actually manage to provide evidence of some audible effect, would you actually bother looking at it?
Could you not at least have a look at jneutrons info before dismissing it off hand.
yeah I looked. Doesn't change the onus of proof. There is no reliable evidence that an audible effect exists. Until that, there is no point postulating an electrical cause.
If something beyond "I sat around with some friends, swapped cables in and out and we sure heard something" comes along, then I'd be as interested as the next guy to understand why it occurs.
But on current evidence, the explanation already exists. Its in your mind. Why is this so difficult to accept?
If something beyond "I sat around with some friends, swapped cables in and out and we sure heard something" comes along, then I'd be as interested as the next guy to understand why it occurs.
But on current evidence, the explanation already exists. Its in your mind. Why is this so difficult to accept?
Last edited:
another tired wired thread...
Interesting that the OP asks for an explanation of these alleged prominant sonic effects, yet when given such data and/or refutation, dismisses it with characteristic arrogance and deferral to "i'm not asking anyone about anything.."
disingenuous and mindlessly argumentative
I hear Godwin approaching...
John L.
Interesting that the OP asks for an explanation of these alleged prominant sonic effects, yet when given such data and/or refutation, dismisses it with characteristic arrogance and deferral to "i'm not asking anyone about anything.."
disingenuous and mindlessly argumentative
I hear Godwin approaching...
John L.
Several levels there:
1. Is there a physical possibility to be an effect that doesn't violate first principles? Yes. jn has put forward what he considers a possible scenario.
2. Can any of these effects show up in the eventual analog signal passed on to speakers with typical good quality electronics (i.e., excluding fashion gear that has been "designed" rather than engineered)?
3. What would you expect to measure in the analog signal to confirm the hypothesis?
4. In typical setups (let's exclude the rare stereo set up right under a 50kW AM station), do you actually measure it, and if so, what's its level and frequency distribution? Is it continuous, intermittent, or random?
5. Is that level within a plausible level where one could detect a difference? (Think of the wonderful Waslo Sousa demo)
If the answer to questions 2-5 is experimentally "yes," then it's worth doing controlled listening tests. If "no," it's the stuff of cranks and charlatans, and if they want to chase unicorns themselves, they're welcome to.
1. Is there a physical possibility to be an effect that doesn't violate first principles? Yes. jn has put forward what he considers a possible scenario.
2. Can any of these effects show up in the eventual analog signal passed on to speakers with typical good quality electronics (i.e., excluding fashion gear that has been "designed" rather than engineered)?
3. What would you expect to measure in the analog signal to confirm the hypothesis?
4. In typical setups (let's exclude the rare stereo set up right under a 50kW AM station), do you actually measure it, and if so, what's its level and frequency distribution? Is it continuous, intermittent, or random?
5. Is that level within a plausible level where one could detect a difference? (Think of the wonderful Waslo Sousa demo)
If the answer to questions 2-5 is experimentally "yes," then it's worth doing controlled listening tests. If "no," it's the stuff of cranks and charlatans, and if they want to chase unicorns themselves, they're welcome to.
It's difficult to accept, because for the people who hear these things what you say makes no sense. They don't read literature that proclaims that such and such a phenomenon "doesn't exist", they just idly experiment with things, and one day they hear an interesting effect - they go back and forth, back and forth a number of times, and say "I'll be blowed!". Something they didn't expect to hear, they didn't anticipate, occurs - so it's most certainly a valid phenomenon for them.
For you to say that "experts" or "technically astute" people attempted to detect something similar happening, and failed - is roughly equivalent to citing that colour blind scientists tried to understand, but failed, as to why people made a big thing of 'colour' ...
I'd still like to hear a science based explanation for stereo imaging but since there does not appear to be one it must be all in my mind and therefore does not exist. Can we measure and provide proof of that phenomenon which would be believable to someone who has not heard it?
Anyway I'm not waiting up for an answer, it's way past bedtime already here. Later dudes!
Anyway I'm not waiting up for an answer, it's way past bedtime already here. Later dudes!
Yes, that's trivially easy.
More mechanistically, you'd say, "It's in the brain." "It's in the mind" has a colloquial meaning which is quite different (i.e., "something imagined"), but in a non-colloquial, literal sense, yes, that's absolutely true.
Ah, thanks. I'd be surprised if anyone has really done any well-controlled listening tests and if they exist, what their scope could be.
Again, if these can possibly make an audible difference, measurement will show a significant electrical difference in the analog signal sent to the speakers, assuming a non-pathological range of end-user environments.
Again, if these can possibly make an audible difference, measurement will show a significant electrical difference in the analog signal sent to the speakers, assuming a non-pathological range of end-user environments.
For me, I can trust Joshua. I have sufficient information from his posts to draw this conclusion. If you're in doubt, please do this:
INVITE LYNN OLSON TO THIS THREAD AND ASK HIS OPINION (if he don't mind).
Of course, for some it will not change anything. But for most, I believe it will 🙂
But this is only my guess. I could be wrong of course.
INVITE LYNN OLSON TO THIS THREAD AND ASK HIS OPINION (if he don't mind).
Of course, for some it will not change anything. But for most, I believe it will 🙂
But this is only my guess. I could be wrong of course.
I have no doubt when anyone says they can here a difference of any change between a device power input and upstream. Especially if they have spent the time, effort, and money to find a combination they like. But when one wants an explanation as to why, some real detailed information and testing is required.
I know it had a significant difference when someone tried to plug a really expensive power cord into a Class D amp I was testing. The guy really embarrassed himself. But my detailed understanding came just by chance when I was looking at different power supply design and line power filtering trying to comply with conductive noise requirements. I asked the lab to extend the lower test range just to see what was going on, and kept log of all the test data (over 100 tests). For each configuration, some analysis methods were tried and changes went first into listening tests to make sure there were no negative impact. Then a set of different configurations were prepared for fast switching and testing to keep lab time to minimum. Through the process, it was discovered that interactive between the line in a way such that power factor was best had the best audible performance out of all that would comply.
However, having selected the type of cord that one thinks is the best just means it sounds most acceptable in combination with the various sonic characteristics other parts of the system contribute. This concept is very different from the "problem reduction and elimination approach, and generally has very little chance of getting close to the fidelity technology is really capable of, just like trying to win a lottery.
I know it had a significant difference when someone tried to plug a really expensive power cord into a Class D amp I was testing. The guy really embarrassed himself. But my detailed understanding came just by chance when I was looking at different power supply design and line power filtering trying to comply with conductive noise requirements. I asked the lab to extend the lower test range just to see what was going on, and kept log of all the test data (over 100 tests). For each configuration, some analysis methods were tried and changes went first into listening tests to make sure there were no negative impact. Then a set of different configurations were prepared for fast switching and testing to keep lab time to minimum. Through the process, it was discovered that interactive between the line in a way such that power factor was best had the best audible performance out of all that would comply.
However, having selected the type of cord that one thinks is the best just means it sounds most acceptable in combination with the various sonic characteristics other parts of the system contribute. This concept is very different from the "problem reduction and elimination approach, and generally has very little chance of getting close to the fidelity technology is really capable of, just like trying to win a lottery.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.