You are correct.
There is no need to pay thousands, or many hundreds, of dollars for superb-sounding power cords.
I chose those cable empirically, not because of any technical data.
I have no idea what technical data will predict the sonic impact cables may have.
Indeed.
It did cost me much less than an expansive commercial power cord which I tried on my system. I tried it, found it unsuitable and didn't purchase it.
Again, I have no idea what technical data will predict the sonic impact cables may have.
As a manufacturer, you are probably correct.
As a consumer, I have different considerations.
Apparently you look for proof by the words of others.
If you want to know the factual truth of the matter, try and see (hear) for yourself.
I don't have an explanation. I only have empirical results.
If you want words of others, I'm not the one who will supply them. If you want to know the factual truth of the matter, try and see (hear) for yourself.
That's excellent.
That is correct.
Why should anyone try to prove anything to someone else, unless he is trying to sell something?
Indeed.
In my case, when I made those experiments, I didn't have a clue what to expect.
On top of that, I tried some interconnect cables and power cords that I thought would be excellent, due to the raving reviews they received, and found out I didn't like their sonic signature.
The placebo effect and prior expectations as an 'explanation' are only excuses for those who have a firm belief on the matter. They believe cables cannot possibly make sonic differences, so they find excuses to confirm their belief and dismiss any evidence that may contradict their belief.
So far no one asked me how I did the tests.
I'm amused by the social phenomenon that people draw conclusions based on wrong guesses about the way I did the tests.
I'll skip detailing the tests procedure. Those who are convinced that cables cannot possibly make sonic differences will find flaws in any procedure, so there is no use.
I've not seen any guesses about how you did the tests.
I am amused that someone would come into a discussion forum with specific unsubstantiated test results, and refuse to discuss the test method....in a discussion forum.
Having seen your posts over the years, it was my expectation that you would refuse to detail your test procedure. I also expected that you would use as an excuse... that others would find flaws in your procedure.
As to a power cord causing an audible change, I have proven that it does happen, and given details. So your argument that "those who are convinced"... holds no water with me.
jn
Let's see.
The above states explicitly that it is only "subjective beliefs of the listeners".
This is nothing other than wrong guess.
The above states explicitly that it is only "confirmation bias ".
This is nothing other than wrong guess.
So, people, without knowing anything about the way I concluded about the sonic differences, decided that:
"It can be anything other than the power cords themselves",
"power cord + humidity in tandem affecting the sound; or maybe a Domino's Pizza delivery drone flew over while you were listening",
"Power cords and interconnects are regular fodder for hand waving conjecture",
"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.",
"subjective beliefs of the listeners",
"The reason for the change in the "sonic signature" is a very well understood phenomenon. Its called confirmation bias.",
"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.",
"There is also the related placebo effect. It applies to cables just as much as it applies to medicine.",
"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.",
"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.",
"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.".
All the above statements are based on wrong guesses about the way I compared various power cords, and/or wring guesses about my sound system.
I didn't report the results of a scientific study, I shared my experience.
However stating that my experience is "hand waving conjecture", or "subjective beliefs of the listeners" or "confirmation bias", or "placebo effect" – without knowing how I did it is nothing other than prejudice of those making those statements.
All the technical data you provide don't change even an iota in the above prejudices. They wouldn't let themselves be confused by the facts.
What counts here, more than the actual procedure, is learning to 'trust ones' ears'.
It is a very long process and I don't see any way I can teach others how to do it.
Possibly, some basic steps are:
It is essential to have a very good and detailed familiarity with ones' sound system and all its' nuances.
With many changes to the system, both minor and major changes, it is necessary to be able to note what effect on the sound various changes have.
It is essential to check ones' audible impressions against prior expectations.
It is necessary that at times a friend will change certain component, say a cable, without one knowing what was changed – and noting the audible differences, or lack off. It is necessary to verify if and when there are differences in the subjective impression when knowing what was changed vs. when not knowing what was changed.
One would know that one can 'trust ones' ears' once one may have the very same subjective impressions when knowing what was changed and when not knowing what was changed.
The bottom line is that one need to be able to 'trust ones' ears' completely.
Without 'trusting your ears', no procedure is good enough.
Once you'd 'trust your ears', you'd know what procedures are necessary, or what procedures are working for you.
Let me share with you a true story that was a step for me in getting to 'trust my ears'.
At one point I installed an isolation transformer to the system and found that it improved the SQ.
On the next step I replaced my existing power-splitting box with another one, which I borrowed from a local dealer for testing. Following that I noted two simultaneous phenomena. On one hand, some aspects of the SQ improved, while on the other hand I noted an irritating sound in the mid-high frequencies. I was going to return the splitting box to the dealer, but he asked me not to hurry and to check it a while longer. So I did some tubes rolling and found out that one of three tubes in my preamp was distorting. So I checked it again with the previous splitting box. Low and behold, that distortion was there, though barely noticed. With the new splitting box (along with the isolation transformer), my system became much more transparent than before, thus that distortion became much more apparent. The end result was that I replaced the faulty tube and purchased that splitting box.
The above is but one incident, out of few, that showed me that I can trust my ears.
When others who don't know me claim that it's 'placebo effect', or that it's 'only in my head' – it amuses me. It amuses me to note their prejudice.
About the heated debates in this thread.
I do know that my subjective evaluations aren't going to convince anyone. I'm not into trying to convince anyone about anything. Yet I'm amused to encounter again certain prejudices.
in the absence of any data at all, and your lack of willingness (or ability) to provide any, the hypotheses (not guesses) put forward are entirely appropriate.
My responses are based on much more data and listening testing over more years by more people that I could possibly provide as an individual. Yours is based on... well, actually we don't know what its based on. 151 posts in and you have still to give even the most cursory of outlines of your test methodology.
You claim that you are rational and base all your decisions on "empirical" evidence. Wiki isn't the greatest source of all time, but at least its readable. Here's what it says about empirical evidence and testing:
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You'll note that its not a replacement for scientific method. The same scientific method that I and others have broadly relied on.
You appear to think it means what ever you observe is true. Thats not empirical evidence, thats egomania. Certainly, you have not provided the evidence which would support another interpretation.
So, far from being confused by facts, we are seeking them.
Opportunity for you then - put up. Prove me wrong.
My responses are based on much more data and listening testing over more years by more people that I could possibly provide as an individual. Yours is based on... well, actually we don't know what its based on. 151 posts in and you have still to give even the most cursory of outlines of your test methodology.
You claim that you are rational and base all your decisions on "empirical" evidence. Wiki isn't the greatest source of all time, but at least its readable. Here's what it says about empirical evidence and testing:
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You'll note that its not a replacement for scientific method. The same scientific method that I and others have broadly relied on.
You appear to think it means what ever you observe is true. Thats not empirical evidence, thats egomania. Certainly, you have not provided the evidence which would support another interpretation.
So, far from being confused by facts, we are seeking them.
Opportunity for you then - put up. Prove me wrong.
I don't always agree with jneutron, but he does seek to provide technical arguments and data to support his views. I listen to him, and consider what he says. Facts are what change my mind.Joshua_G said:
What someone believes themselves able to hear under unspecified conditions is not a fact.
You are correct (from your POV).
I'm not going to provide the data you are looking for.
Therefore I fail to see what may further interest you in this thread.
I shared my personal evaluations.
I seek not technical arguments concerning power cords and other cables.
I don't intend to enter any technical arguments concerning power cords and other cables.
Yet, I cannot and I have no wish to stop anyone else from discussing whatever they may wish. Those who want to discuss technical arguments are welcomed to do so. I'm not going to participate in it.
My comments so far were about the absurdity of those guessing wrongly about what I did and how I did it.
(Personal notes,
1. To the best of my evaluation, no technical arguments are going to move anyone participating in this thread from ones' present stand on the matter. Therefore I see no point in doing so.
2. AFAIK, existing technical explanations fail to cover all aspects of cables' influence on perceived sound.)
Wow! How perceptive you are!
Now that the straw man collapsed, is there anything else that may interest you in this thread?
Oh, that's easy. Present a valid testing regimen so that others may hear what you hear under the same conditions.
Until you do, it appears you are only hear to listen to yourself.
jn
You need to re-evaluate. Technical arguments have been presented, some people are quite accepting of the arguments, and more importantly, the technical arguments are testable. You refuse that.
How would you know? You state outright that you ignore the technical arguments.
jn
Not here no, and it seems no prospect of anything.
Jimmy Neutron's gallery stuff, yes.
Cheers
- Status
- Not open for further replies.