On Day Two of CES 2018 Proof That A.C. Cables Make a Big Sonic Difference
Later in the day AudioQuest power expert Garth Powell (who knows well more about A.C. power than do you, trust me), explains why A.C. cables make a significant audible difference in an audio system. Powell not only explains why, he demonstrates it here. You will hear the same piece of music played twice, once with a "stock" molded rubber power cord between the CD player and preamplifier and once with AudioQuest's least expensive power cord, the Thunder. Despite being recorded via a camcorder shotgun microphone you can easily hear the difference.
Later, Powell, a veteran power conditioner designer, who worked for years for the pro audio company Furman, compared in real time expensive power cables from Shunyata, Transparent and Nordost with the AudioQuest cables he designed using a track from "Muddy Waters Folk Singer".
And after that, using a track from Bruce Springsteen's "The Seeger Sessions" album, he compares the three AudioQuest A.C. cables and the differences were critical and easily heard by all in attendance. It was no more "conformational bias" than would be showing a color and black and white photo and asking which was which.
The video does not include the demo using the other brands of A.C. cables because recording through a camcorder microphone is hardly ideal or fair! However the comparison between "stock" rubber molded and the AudioQuest cable is, especially since the most important point is to demonstrate that power cords do make a difference and even using the shotgun microphone from the second row, you should be able to hear it!
Tomorrow we'll have the final video from day three plus a written show wrap-up.
 | ||
|
||
- Log in or register to post comments
COMMENTS
Aside from pointing out that a violinist establishes a unique bond with his instrument, he also admits:
But perhaps there is a psychological component, too, given the storied histories of some violins crafted by old masters and the luminaries whose hands these instruments have passed through.
I've made this point several times, but it's the main issue:
The claim being made is that the AQ cord produces a sonic change at the output so OBVIOUS that anyone should be able to hear it then it HAS to be changing the output signal. And that should be measurable.
The measurements I think we should want to see aren't those made at the power cord, but in the signal output by the CD player.
In fact, if the sound is so different with the AQ cord that the difference can be captured by a camcorder microphone, we should even be able to make a recording of the sound from the output of the CD player with and without the AQ cable, and we should be able to observe/measure the difference.
Can someone point to such measurements that support the claims made in this video?
Thanks.
Who else should do this procedure and provide this information for you?
I looked at the AudioQuest web site.
No such measurements are there, that I could find. I'd think that they would be pretty easy and if such measurement helped make AudioQuest's case for their products, they would be the ones providing them.
Instead what I read didn't exactly fill me with more confidence.
For instance, in their "Theory and Education" section I read about their attention to cord directionality. It appears the folks at AudioQuest first *believed* they heard differences in sound based on which direction they plugged in cords. Instead of acting like scientists and first determining whether they *could* actually hear a difference (e.g. via blind testing) it appears they simply believed their ears and went about making a theory to explain what they (believe) they were hearing. They don't provide measurements in support of this, but say "As always, the proof is in the listening."
Again, if the cable direction changes actually produced the audible changes they claim, it seems this should be verifiable by measuring changes in the output of whatever device is using the cables.
It seems rather...suspicious...that no such evidence is provided (that I could find).
It is also something of a red flag that Stereophile provides measurements for speakers, amplifiers, DACs etc...attempting to understand the measurements in terms of their audible consequences.
But for cables - an item that reviewers, audiophiles and cable manufacturers tout as changing the sound of a system - they don't even bother trying measurements.
This is I think something of a red flag for skeptics that something is fishy about the high end cable phenomenon.
...in reviews, product information, tests, white papers, etc., anyone providing the kind of information that you are looking for?
For that matter, do you know of anyone in the entire audio industry that does blind testing?
Maybe, what you are looking for doesn't exist.
Companies that produce industry standard quality cables - e.g. Belden, Canare, provide measurements for their cables. It's the high end boutique market cables selling cables for thousands of dollars who don't seem to want to supply the measurements.
Do you think that isn't cause for some skepticism?
Web sites such as Audioholics will show measurements when they test/review cables. Example:
http://www.audioholics.com/gadget-reviews/blue-jeans-10awg-speaker-cable...
And companies like Harmon Karden design via more scientific methods (e.g. blind testing involved) for which there is a great deal of data available (e.g. results of blind tests, technical explanations for the results, etc).
So, yes, there are places to get this type of info.
Companies like AudioQuest and Shunyata are happy to talk in technical terms about the problem they are "solving." And where they CAN produce technical, objective measurements in support of their claims, they want to show us, given this is just more good advertisement for their product. Look up, for instance, the various videos in which Shunyata demonstrate objectively measurable differences produced by their products. (E.g. the "DTCD and ASCC Demonstration" and other videos).
When even I look at the videos, they seem compelling. Why? Because they are showing objective measurements that can't just be put down to imagination.
BUT...the point I keep making...is that what we aren't seeing are measurements for the crucial part of their technical claim: that their product alters the audio signal output of the device powered by the cables.
It's strange that the companies are comfortable talking tech-speak right up until the point where they ought to be able to show us technical demonstration of the results...but it's just at that point that marketing takes over instead of engineering and science.
Thanks for that great post.
Agree.
...answers your question.
This is retail.
Profit driven.
No one is compelled to tell you anything.
That's why you guys are reviewers and are very good at what you do!
I think that might've been the most sensibly written, for the skeptics...
RH....My head is hurting from your continued comments that the changes should be measurable. Time out...go to your room without dinner and listen to music...
If I read the Denby piece correctly, Mikey picked out a problem of speaker cables - in a system with which he had no familiarity; a much less expensive cable was used, and the sound dramatically improved. That's quite a story in and of itself. How much did cost enter into this? Sometimes the little things illuminate the big things.
These exchanges jogged my memory back to '87 when I read Dad's Stereo Review and the Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Society's test of power amplifiers, using blind tests. They concluded there were no audible differences between a $350 Pioneer receiver, a Mark Levinson amp, and a Jules Futterman OTL tube amp. Am I remembering this correctly?
My familiarity with power cables is limited but not nonexistent and not high on my radar right now. At some point audiophile friends and I will try some comparisons. I will trust my ears. Having read Mikey since he joined Stereophile (mid-90s?), and having benefited in analog by reading his advice (thanks for that) and when funds have allowed, he had a good record with me and have come to trust his judgment.
To be clear, the power cord in question was to the CD player?
After the electricity had gone through their AC conditioner?
Isn't that kind of an indictment of their power conditioner?
I do not master the English language very well but his demonstration does not seem very scientific to me. On the other hand, what is certain is that the difference in audio quality is so obvious that if there was no trick, everyone would agree and no one would talk about a placebo effect concerning the power supply! But I think he will never do his experiment in a scientific context but will continue to do it in audiophile salons filled with rich people ...
Unrelated to the OP, but your post made me think of it - I've long thought, after noticing "who" goes to these shows (at least in the US), that the people often aren't wealthy. I think there's some psychology at play that association with what are arguably luxury items somehow counters one's socioeconomic status, and the criticism of the products, and by extension, the designers, is some form of comeuppance. I am not talking about the DIYers, the tinkerers, or the artisans, but the people that go after the cables and the Wilsons and the Rockports... the real symbols.
I find all these discussions/arguments entertaining. People wanting scientific evidence based on measurements etc as if science has all the answers. "It sounds different/better so it must be measurable". Really? So every difference we hear has a measurement that we can measure? In my experience the differences I typically hear that are disputed are in soundstage. Whether it be the height or the depth etc.. I am not familiar with any measurements for these things in science. If they exist please let me know.
As for blind testing I have yet to see one done that didn't have some sort of flaw in it. Plus, peoples bias' in general in either direction skew results of any testing like this. It may be the best thing we have to try and prove differences but it is by no means a perfect or definitive means to the end. There are too many variables that come in to play both from a technical aspect and a psychological one.
The human mind and body is an amazing tool that is better than any piece of measuring equipment out there, flaws and all. Measuring equipment may be able to measure one or two aspects but our body can factor in so much more, for good or bad.
I spent a good deal of time arguing with someone on FaceBook this weekend about this very topic and both sides brought up great points but the undeniable fact is that science has some great information and some great ways to measure things but it doesn't have all the answers, yet. Maybe it never will, who knows.
Bottom line is if you feel you hear a difference and you feel it is worth the investment no one is harmed by it. All these zealots out there trying to save the world from high end audio "snake oil salesmen" really should find another another hobby and just let the rest of us enjoy our hobby.
I love this part: "Bottom line is if you feel you hear a difference and you feel it is worth the investment no one is harmed by it. All these zealots out there trying to save the world from high end audio "snake oil salesmen" really should find another another hobby and just let the rest of us enjoy our hobby."
If only the zealots telling us other zealots that we all have to hear what they hear would quit with their nonsense, as well, we'd all be swimming in pleasure.
None of us are deaf.
If you convince yourself of something, great, why the need to convince everybody else? There is more of gravy to them than the grave, as Dickens said. (It's a bit of an audio Rorschach, it seems they need us all to hear it along with them to assuage their insecurities.)
My experience is that generally the responses by those who believe in better cables etc. that others are deaf are generally in retaliation to those that say its impossible. Not condoning the response but I rarely have seen someone post that others are deaf as an original post. It is usually because they are deep in the angry argument phase of the discussion.
The "science doesn't have all the answers" response is the same given by people in defense of everything from astrology, to psychic reading, to faith healing, to magic healing crystals, to virtually every dubious claim you can find.
It's the reply people give when they can't otherwise give good reasons for what they believe. And for pointing this out, one will be called a "zealot," which is pretty ironic.
Again, the fact that you are providing a similar response as someone would give defending tarot cards or astrology DOESN'T mean that your experience hearing changes in cables isn't more veridical.
But what it DOES mean is that any claims or beliefs you have about it, absent any better evidence, is in the same standing as the Tarot cards Card reader. If that's ok for you, it's a personal call and so be it. As I've said, most people like myself who are skeptical about some of the claims in high end audio point out no one is seeking to deny anyone the freedom to believe or buy what he wants. We all get to make that call.
But it's strange that if some of us are truly curious about the truth of the matter, and want better evidence before WE accept some of these claims to be true...well then THAT is disparaged, name calling occurs (zealot, idiot, etc)
Again: if an AudioQuest cable objectively changes the output signal of a CD player's signal, as they claim, how is it being a "zealot" to simply ask to see measurements confirming this claim?
The idea that the human body is a more amazing tool of measurement than our technical tools is misleading. If you are of a certain age, your hearing tool will be insufficient to let us know if an 18Hz or 20Hz signal is being played. You simply will be unable to perceive it. But measurement tools can tell us it's there. The same goes for all sorts of distortion figures and perturbations in audio signals. If something measures below a certain threshold ratio....we can predict you will not be able to hear it.
This part is interesting:
All these zealots out there trying to save the world from high end audio "snake oil salesmen" really should find another another hobby and just let the rest of us enjoy our hobby.
What do you mean by "our hobby?"
Are you suggesting that audio, and high end audio, is only the domain of people who, like yourself, fall on a certain side of an issue like the audibility of power cables? What about someone who has enjoyed high end audio for most of his life, but who is skeptical about certain claims. Do I not get to be in the high end audio hobby?
What exactly is the matter...and what is so galling to you...about trying to get more information on a subject?
What if you had saved your money for an expensive diamond ring for your bride. You've handed over $10,000 to a jewler for what he represents to be, and you believe, to be an authentic diamond.
But it turns out the diamond is fake. One you could have gotten for spending 20 bucks elsewhere. Except you couldn't tell the difference.
Would you be happy with the Jewler excusing this scenario by saying "Look, Mr. Carter couldn't tell the difference between a real diamond and the fake one. If there is no difference for Mr. Carter, well why should I care or worry about it? Why should he care?"
I'm right in thinking you would not accept this, correct? Why not?
Well, it's because you normally care about the truth. The difference between a real diamond and a fake one is the actual content of the stone and how rare it is. You paid big bucks in order to attain an item with JUST those actual differences to a fake one. If what you got could have been had for 20 dollars, the you have wasted a great deal of money on false pretenses you were getting something different. Right?
So, why do you not seem to care in the same way about the truth-in-advertisement when it comes to your audio purchases?
If, for instance, you are sold a cable on the pretense it offers DIFFERENT and better performance than a cheap cable...I'm curious why someone wouldn't care if that's true or not? If it's not true, then just as in the diamond ring example, you are not getting what you thought you paid for, and you could have had the same results by spending vastly less money.
Again...this is in no way telling you how to spend your money. But it just seems a curious inconsistency, where people give things like high end audio a pass "Well, if I think there's a difference my money is well spent." But you wouldn't say that about a fake diamond "Well, if I think it's a real diamond, then my money is well spent."
If there was information suggesting you'd paid for a fake diamond, wouldn't that be of interest to you?
If there were information suggesting an expensive cable won't offer any audible benefits from a cheaper cable...why wouldn't that be of interest to you?
At the very least, it's odd to castigate those who would be interested in whether buying a high end cable ACTUALLY yields better sonic performance.
[The "science doesn't have all the answers" response is the same given by people in defense of everything from astrology, to psychic reading, to faith healing, to magic healing crystals, to virtually every dubious claim you can find."
"Again: if an AudioQuest cable objectively changes the output signal of a CD player's signal, as they claim, how is it being a "zealot" to simply ask to see measurements confirming this claim?]
So are you saying science has all the answers and we should just accept that to be the case? I sure don't. As I mentioned before if you can tell me how to scientifically measure soundstage then you got me.
[What do you mean by "our hobby?"]
I mean anyone who is passionate about listening to and enjoying music, nothing more, nothing less.
[What if you had saved your money for an expensive diamond ring for your bride. You've handed over $10,000 to a jewler for what he represents to be, and you believe, to be an authentic diamond.
But it turns out the diamond is fake. One you could have gotten for spending 20 bucks elsewhere. Except you couldn't tell the difference.]
Bad analogy for a few reasons. One, as far as I have seen all these "snake oil salesman" have money back guarantees, if they don't I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. A place that sells you a fake diamond would most likely not allow you to return it. I would even go as far as saying that many hi end stereo shops go out of their way to allow you to demo stuff before you buy it. A jewelry store that doesn't stand behind their product and sells you a fake diamond wouldn't do that. Also, there are tests that can easily tell if a diamond is fake. Audio measurements are incomplete.
[If, for instance, you are sold a cable on the pretense it offers DIFFERENT and better performance than a cheap cable...I'm curious why someone wouldn't care if that's true or not? If it's not true, then just as in the diamond ring example, you are not getting what you thought you paid for, and you could have had the same results by spending vastly less money.]
I'm not sure why someone wouldn't care. If they take it home, try it out and feel that it doesn't make a difference they would be stupid not to return it and they would be able to.
[Again...this is in no way telling you how to spend your money. But it just seems a curious inconsistency, where people give things like high end audio a pass "Well, if I think there's a difference my money is well spent." But you wouldn't say that about a fake diamond "Well, if I think it's a real diamond, then my money is well spent."]
I don't know of anyone who gives it a pass. If anyone blindly buys high end audio and keeps it even though it doesn't sound better then the cheaper stuff they had I have never seen it.
[If there were information suggesting an expensive cable won't offer any audible benefits from a cheaper cable...why wouldn't that be of interest to you?
At the very least, it's odd to castigate those who would be interested in whether buying a high end cable ACTUALLY yields better sonic performance.]
If you want to do that and feel that science has all the answers already and that you can measure everything already by all means. I choose to believe that science has much more to learn and discover and the science of audio is in that category for me. Again how do you measure soundstage depth and height? If you make your conclusions on incomplete data how can you make a truly educated decision?
J. Carter,
”So are you saying science has all the answers and we should just accept that to be the case?
Of course not. This idea that I’m basing my views on the claim “Science has all the answers and has explained EVERYTHING” is a complete strawman and red herring.
Again, this red-herring is used so often when people can’t provide good evidence or reasons to support their claim or belief.
Let’s say “John” claimed he’d just made a flying machine that worked via a perpetual motion motor. John pushes it to the edge of a cliff and says, “Get it, let’s take it for a ride!
We just move off this cliff and the perpetual motion motor will drive the aircraft into the air!”
The obvious reaction should be skepticism. “Hold on John, forgive me but, can you give me some more evidence for your claim about how your aircraft works? I’d like to see it before I get in.”
John replies “Your skepticism is unwarranted. Don’t you know SCIENCE HASN’T EXPLAINED EVERYTHING?”
Surely you understand this would be a rather poor answer to the quite rational reticence to just believe the claim. The skepticism isn’t based on the belief science has explained everything: it’s based on the fact John hasn’t supplied good evidence FOR HIS CLAIM. It’s also based on the fact that, although science hasn’t explained everything, it has explained a lot. And much of what science has uncovered bears on John’s claim. Our best science indicates a perpetual motion motor is not possible. Could the science be wrong? Sure. But there’s lots of evidence it’s right in terms of theory and experiment, and if John thinks it’s wrong, then we’ll want John to demonstrate how science has got it wrong.
Until then, skepticism about John’s claim is completely warranted, and his protests that “science hasn’t explained everything” are just a hand-waving distraction to the fact he’s made a claim he can’t support.
So the question is: why would you think your reply that “science not having explained everything” has any more pertinence than John’s protestation?
I mean anyone who is passionate about listening to and enjoying music, nothing more, nothing less.
Whew, good. I still get to be in the club :-)
I’m still wondering, though, why you think my own request for more evidence and understanding of a high end audio claim somehow impacts your own enjoyment of listening to music? Why did that compel you to suggest I go find another hobby instead of looking into these questions?
As for the fake diamoned analogy, please see my additional reply to Elubow and see if that clarifies my point for you.
Again how do you measure soundstage depth and height? If you make your conclusions on incomplete data how can you make a truly educated decision?
There is a fair amount known about the measurable parameters that affect those things. For instance, I’ve had loudspeaker designers tell me they know where to place a little dip in the frequency response to increase image depth. And for imaging, have you ever read Stereophile’s measurements,? You will often find comments from Atkinson explaining things like “But note in fig.5 the evenness of the contour lines, something that always correlates with stable, precise stereo imaging.”
As for the impression of “height,” are you not aware of the current Dolby Atmosphere systems, used in home theater? This is a new method of steering signals not only to surrounds, but to “height” channel speakers on the ceiling. But if you don’t want to put new speakers on your ceiling you can buy speakers specified for the Dolby Atmos effect that direct part of the signal up towards the ceiling such that you “hear” great height to the image, spaceships flying over the screen and your head, etc. How do you think they determine how to do this? By correlating what type of objective measured parameters of the speaker design will correlate with the perception of height, obviously!
So is everything known down to the last iota, including all the minutiae of imaging? Of course not. But there’s no reason to pretend there is *significant* knowledge available on these subjects.
And you of course chose sound aspects you presumed to be the hardest to measure. Please remember that the types of claims reviewers and audiophiles often make for power cords are things like “deepening/tightening of base, more air in the upper frequencies” and all manner of gross audible changes.
We can measure those things. Go to any subwoofer forum and find out how to measure bass depth, overhang, ringing, etc.
If a manufacturer makes a technical claim to alter the sound signal, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask them to support that claim by providing measured differences in the signal. The reply “science doesn’t know everything” is a non-answer, it’s a shifting of the burden of proof, as if one has to prove everything ever via science to just demand better evidence for the claim in question.
Cheers!
I just got done swearing I was done with this but had this undeniable compulsion to respond to your comments. Your reasoning is fine- to a point. But I think your analogy with the fake or real diamond is not quite convincing. Firstly, it’s likely that the jeweler will know he sold a fake diamond, thus committing a crime. I’m not convinced, though, that you could say the same about a company that sells $10,000 power cord or cables. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the manufacturer or company salesmen may also believe they also hear a difference in cables, that the more expensive one is better. And because, as you say, unless we see actual scientific data, it remains purely subjective.
What court of law would convict a cable maker of criminal intent when some consumers say they hear a difference in sound, no matter how expensive the cable?Yet, it’s evident that the diamond salesman would likely be convicted of fraud for selling a fake diamond.
Elubow,
Thanks for the comment. (I'm replying to you first, as your comment is more focused).
I'd hoped the point of the fake diamond example was clear, but it seems people got sidetracked by the issue of deception.
The essential issue I mean to address in the example isn't deliberate deception or a question of illegality.
It's the idea, so often propounded "If I hear a difference, that's all that matters and so I consider my money is well spent."
I am pointing out that this isn't actually a principle many would uphold in many other areas of their purchases.
It essentially relies on the premise, "What I believe to be the case is what matters." And yet we can see that this isn't the case in examples like the fake diamond.
I don't actually believe that most high end cable manufacturers, or many other manufacturers of tweaks I find dubious, are being intentionally deceptive. I'm happy enough to accept they believe their own claims. Essentially, they are audiophiles and ultimately using subjective audiophile criteria in the manufacturing/testing of their own ideas. E.g. AudioQuest's declaration ultimately it's up to what our ears hear.
So change the diamond example to a Jeweler who didn't know the diamond he sold was a fake one. The Jeweler believes the diamond is real just like his customer.
That doesn't change the point: Surely, if you have paid money for a diamond you THOUGHT to be real, but was a fake, that would matter.
And the simple fact you can't tell the difference and hence believe you have a diamond isn't the point. If, instead of slaving for a year saving for the "diamond" you could have gotten the same thing for 20 bucks elsewhere instead of $10,000...THOSE are the type of facts that usually matter to us. Right? The truth matters; our being deceived matters, whether intentional or not.
And if someone could point out reasons why the Jeweler had failed - even innocently - to determine the authenticity of the diamond (e.g he wasn't using the proper tools/measurements)...that would normally seem pertinent. We'd want to understand where this type of error came from, and this information would lead us to avoid Jewelers using a faulty method of evaluating real from fake jewels.
And yet, this normal principle of caring about the truth concerning what we are paying for is waved off in the case of high end audio claims. "If I BELIEVE it, that's good enough!"
Just as in the innocently mistaken Jewler example, it's possible those selling an extremely expensive AC cable could be musing sub-optimal methods of vetting their own claims. So you could end up with the equivalent of a "fake diamond" - buying something on the pretense it produces a different audio signal (I bought a "real diamond") when it's not the case, and you could have got the same quality result from spending 20 bucks ("I may as well have knowingly bought a fake diamond").
So, again, it isn't about deception or illegality, it's about the strange inconsistency that people use to rationalize high end audio purchases that they would recognize as poor reasons in many other areas of their experience.
As I keep saying, I've no problem with any choice someone wants to make. But if it's going to be continually thrown back at the skeptic that this is GOOD REASONING and the skeptic is a jerk for not accepting it, well then we are in a debate. And the principle is often promoted: "Look, the only real way to determine these things is to LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. If you hear a difference, there's a difference. If you don't, move on."
But should a skeptic explain good reasons for rejecting this reasoning - e.g. because we care about the truth of what we would be paying for, the truth of technical manufacturer's claims, and we want to understand how audio/perception actually works, all keeping the problems of human bias in mind - well then this seeking more knowledge is decried as zealotry.
Maybe missing something here. You say:
“So, again, it isn't about deception or illegality, it's about the strange
inconsistency that people use to rationalize high end audio purchases that
they would recognize as poor reasons in many other areas of their experience.”
That’s why I believe this is a poor analogy. Leaving out legality or illegality, a diamond can be easily identified by its inherent characteristics: “a precious stone consisting of a clear and typically colorless crystalline form of pure carbon, the hardest naturally occurring substance.” Any diamond expert could certainly confirm whether or not a stone possesses these characteristics and thus qualifies as a real diamond.
But power cables or wires, by their very nature pose a different problem and inevitably involve inconsistency and subjectivity. In this case we’re not asking “ is this a real power cable” (like the diamond). We want to know if the power cable can do what it’s advertised to do by the manufacturer-produce a “better” sound. And whether or not it does that is in the ear of the beholder and totally subjective. No matter what the specs seem to confirm ( if they exist at all) some will say they enhance the sound, others will deny this to be the case. It seems to me you want to take something that’s inherently subjective and somehow arrive at a final “truth”’ which, in this case, I believe is a fool’s errand.
You write:
“And yet, this normal principle of caring about the truth concerning what we
are paying for is waved off in the case of high end audio claims. "If I
BELIEVE it, that's good enough!
This doesn’ mean we don’t care about the “truth”. We do. Truth is just defined differently in this case. Either the cable enhances the sound or it doesn’t. And again each of us will, in the end, determine what the “truth” means to us. And, unfortunately, it has to be “good enough” when you rely on something as subjective as audiophile’s perception of sound.
I understand: you want something substantive to grab on to, some specs, some scientific data that would explain any sound enhancement. Even if specs were provided, I truly doubt a group of audiophiles would reach a consensus. Maybe I’m too pessimistic.
Let me know if I somehow missed you point again.
Elubow,
Yes I think the point was missed again :-)
"But power cables or wires, by their very nature pose a different problem and inevitably involve inconsistency and subjectivity."
Sez who?
You see, that is just the type of claim that cable skeptics would challenge. They believe (with lots of evidence) that cable qualities are measurable, and that the technical claims made by such companies should be measurable. Simply asserting that this isn't the case - suggesting we can measure differences in materials like diamonds but not in the materials used in cables, or their effects on sound - is just begging the question. And saying it's "inherently subjective" begs exactly that same question.
"We want to know if the power cable can do what it’s advertised to do by the manufacturer-produce a “better” sound."
Yes, of course. Exactly my point.
This doesn’ mean we don’t care about the “truth”. We do. Truth is just defined differently in this case.
Wait...why would one accept that claim? What could it even mean? Isn't "truth" just...true or not?
Either the cable enhances the sound or it doesn’t.
Yes.
But you seem to have just assumed in your argument that the results can only be assessed subjectively. This assumption in your argument is unwarranted on so many levels.
But first lets talk about "truth" so we can be on the same page.
Back to the diamond. And lets presume here we care about the truth of our beliefs (if we don't, any further conversation would be impossible...)
If someone is going to be asked to pay an enormous amount of money for what he believes will be a real diamond, it's going to matter if it's a fake or not, right? We want to know what's true, because understanding the truth has consequences. If I knew before hand that a diamond was fake and I could get the same thing for 20 dollars at a cheap stand, I'm not going to pay 10 grand for it. That's knowledge that's obviously useful.
So say I've taken my "diamond" home and I'm looking at it. But it's a fake that I think is a diamond.
There are two propositions we can talk about:
1. Looking at the diamond causes me to believe it's a real diamond.
Well...that's fine. It's not disputable. That's what we expect if we have been duped and can't tell the difference.
But the important question is WHY it causes me to believe it's a real diamond. We can break that down to:
1. It causes me to believe I have a real diamond because it's a real diamond.
or
2. It causes me to believe I have a real diamond, because it's a fake that looks like a real diamond.
Now, that's a possible difference in real world facts that we would care about, right?
And because it's important, we would want ways of distinguishing between a real diamond, vs a fake diamond. In the case of the fake, it just turns out that I haven't the experience or tools to distinguish the fake from the real....but that doesn't entail it makes no difference how my belief was caused.
Same with AC cables.
I take an AC cable home, hook it into my system, and percieve that it changes the sound.
So if I say:
1. Hooking up the new AC cable causes me to believe the sound has changed.
That's perfectly understandable. No reason to dispute it. I've experienced it before.
But, like the diamond example, that doesn't drill down into area of "truth" that can matter - what is causing that belief, and why?
1. My belief is caused by the fact the AC cable is, in fact, changing the signal in the sound system.
or:
2. My belief the sound changed is is caused by an expectation bias, not due to any true changes in the audio signal caused by the cable.
Now, since we KNOW that expectation bias can act as such a cause for the belief "the sound changed" it makes sense, to the degree we care about the truth of our beliefs and why we believe it, to have a method to discern between the two possible causes for the belief.
Methods of gaining evidence for the first belief (e.g. the cable actually changed the sound) are things like measurable changes in the signal, and or/bind testing to remove known sighted bias effects.
These things are done often in the audio world. And as I've said, IF the AudioQuest cable actually alters the output signal to the degree you can obviously hear it, then there would be measurable differences. (I mentioned in another post that in my work in post sound, I see this all the time).
Now, maybe you will want to say that audiophiles don't really care about the truth of either 1 or 2. That whether the cable ACTUALLY does what the manufacturer says, and ACTUALLY alters the sound, isn't a truth that doesn't really matter.
But this would be unbelievable for many reasons. First...there's the diamond example already given. Nobody REALLY wants to be duped in that way, and this is shown in any number of other real world examples.
But more to the point: Look at high end audio reviews. A salient feature of virtually every review is a long discussion of the technical claims of the manufacturer. Why the manufacturer used X manner of cabinet bracing, why they are using X type of crossover, why they are using new lighter weight/stiffer beryllium drivers etc.
All that is there because audiophiles CARE about this; we like to read about the technical reasons a product should garner our interest - why will it sound any different or better than another product, or the manufacturers last product.
A huge amount of audio writing is taken up trying to understand the technical reasons WHY something will have an effect on the sound. It's why it's such a geek-driven hobby. It's why AudioQuest gives a tech-Spiel explaining WHY their product enhances the sound.
So the idea that audiophiles who hear differences in cables don't really care about the truth of the technical claims wouldn't hold up for a second.
Rather, audiophiles tend to care, but evaluate the results of those technical claims via listening.
But what tends to happen is that the audiophile, often swayed by the technical claims, "hears" a difference and this tends to commit him to the idea "there is a sonic difference" just like the manufacturer claimed.
Personal experience is very powerful. It's how we get through life, trying to make sense of the world. So when someone else raises questions about your experience it comes off as arrogant and unwarranted. The feeling is "How can YOU tell me that I didn't experience what I experienced? You who weren't even there! How arrogant!"
But, well, in this grown up world where we actually acknowledge the existence of science and it's methods...sorry...it really is possible you are making a mistake. And I'm JUST as fallible. We all are. Science has shown us just how egalitarian misconception and error is among human beings.
The fact is that most audiophiles touting sonic changes via things like AC cables really believe the AC cables are the cause of their beliefs. That the cables are changing the sound, not a bias effect. You can see this care for the truth of that belief throughout this thread.
It's only when that belief becomes hard to defend, in the face of what we know about bias effects, that this more mushy, shape-shifting of "true for me" comes in. It's a last ditch effort in an argument, but not the one the audiophile actually generally is appealing to in his actual beliefs.
This is giving me a headache; haven’t had such a mental workout since my college philosophy class in freedom and determinism. You present your arguments well and think logically. Sorry I don’t seem to be up to the task!
I've been reading your comments and I must admit you make good arguments ..but in terms of your experience and what you're listening to I think it would be helpful for me to know just what components you have in your system and what cables you're using without that I have no way of gauging what you consider Audiophile sound... after all that is what we're talking about here not diamonds
I'm all ears LOL
Thank you Mr. Genius :-)
I'm sure many may have inferred I'm a cheapskate, but I'm a long time Stereophile/Absolute Sound-reading audiophile and I've been through a heck of a lot of equipment (no doubt like many here).
Currently I use Jim Thiel's last flagship 3.7 speakers...as well as the slightly smaller Thiel 2.7 speakers that I'm currently integrating with 2 JL 110E subwoofers, using the amazing JL Audio CR-1 crossover and a Dspeaker Anti-Node for DSPing subwoofer frequencies.
I also have MBL mbl radialstrahler omni-directional speakers (the 121s). I'm a huge MBL fan but the bigger speakers are beyond my pay grade. But the 121s have the omni mid/tweeter array and definitely convey that special MBL magic.
I also currently own speakers from other (older) companies - Spendor, Hales, Waveform. I guess you could say I love speakers (and those are only a few of the ones I've owned over the last 20 years).
I'm a tube amp guy, so I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks (140W/side), Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 tube line stage. (As well as a locally built tube preamp I sometimes use).
Also have a classic Eico HF-81 tube amp. Measured like "crap" re Stereophile measurements, but to my ears it's magic when I hook it up.
I have a Benchmark DAC 2. Fed by Raspberry Pi server.
Analog source: I recently received a Transrotor Fat Bob turntable - a gorgeous beast, 55 lbs of obsessive German engineering. Benz Micro L cartridge. With the new JE Audio phono stage.
My listening room was custom designed with the aid of an acoustician. I'm happy I went that route as pretty much any speaker sounds excellent in there.
Cables...well...as you may have surmised, that's not an area I allocate a big portion of my funds. For speaker cables I just use high quality Belden 10-gauge 5T00UP (10-gauge because I had a long run for the speaker cables). Interconnects are just a mish-mash of whatever I have around, left over the years, and whatever audio-obsessed friends have lent me when I needed more interconnects. So I know there's some old Kimber PBJ in there, some Analysis Plus, some generic ones. If I add any more, which I will for the long runs to my new subwoofers, they will be the (measurably!) low capacitance interconnects from Blue Jeans cable.
Power cords: whatever stock cords came with the gear, plugged into some cheapish power bars. Admittedly, I think I should upgrade the power bars if only in terms of protection from electrical spikes/storms.
Maybe more than you wanted to know. But...since you were curious...
Cheers!
Thanks for your quick reply on that.. well I think that definitely qualifies as some good equipment some of it I don't know about but you definitely sound like an audiophile... as certain as I am about the improvement that high-quality cables have made to my system from hearing it myself and especially since I did it incrementally and not all at once I don't really have any doubts also the arguments made here got me thinking and I will say that if I hadn't of just better to try it for myself I may have been dissuaded by some of your and other arguments here in terms of the data or evidence given by the manufacturerson how exactly their cables improve sound. That being said as I pointed out in one of my other posts since most of these cables can be purchased from authorized dealers they do have a return policy at least where I purchased mine at Magnolia design center and if they don't then I understand why you might not want to take the chance but if you can just return something you're not happy I would implore you to just give it a shot in your system and I think you'll be amazed at the difference.as I said in one of my post if the differences were very subtle or barely discernible I would've just taken these things back and said give me a refund . It's not like I took relish and spending thousands of dollars on cables but the results were clear and in some cases stunning.I did just purchased a new power cable in the storm series of audio quest called thunder and also I have the audio quest Niagara 1000 power conditioner. The Niagara is only $1000 and the thunder cable was about $600 the difference it will make in your system is definitely worth that.. but I think you owe it to yourself to try it even though the science maybe isn't there to back up these claims the worst that can happen is you'll just say it's worthless and just return them .. if you really care about how your system sounds don't you owe it to yourself to do that at least ?
I don't know what you're using for speaker cables but if you want a really big impact I switched from a $200 pair of audio quest cables to $2000 pair of their Aspen line..it was by far the most expensive cable I added but the difference was truly stunning I can say with authority there's absolutely no way this was expectation bias..
Believe it or not another audio file who I don't really know too well but he purchased an old Macintosh amp definitely in the skeptic camp on the cable thing despite my repeated attempts just said he wasn't going to waste that much money even though he spent about $40,000 on his speakers and amps... A couple months later he called me and said he finally decided to give it a try and was blown away at the difference it made..
Hope you give it a try ..
RH it also astounds me that people that believe so much in science to explain things also have this weird belief that science already has all the answers. That seems to go completely against the whole premise of science to me. It would be like someone who had a phonograph with that big horn that produced the sound from the record believed that there was no way that technology could be bested. I mean it is taking soundwaves directly from a record groove and amplifying them naturally right?
Or if scientists still believed that lobotomies actually cured everything they claimed to cure. They stopped because the more research they did the more they found out. That further research concluded that it doesn't help.
Or what if computer chip manufacturers decided to stop trying to make chips smaller?
We still have alot to learn about sound reproduction, it is still a relatively young invention. I mean stereo audio reproduction has only been around for less than 70 years.
J. Carter,
Though I already responded to your other comment, explaining why the "science has all the answers" thing is a strawman, I'd hope you can notice this:
Here we have been discussing the claims of an AC power cable from AudioQuest.
And you keep disparaging anyone who wants to bring science to bear on the subject.
Have you not noticed the nature of AudioQuest's own claims?
Seen the video?
It was a *technical* dissertation on the various forms of radiation that can enter an audio system: what they are, how it happens, what type of technical moves to make in order to eliminate it.
Note that Michael Fremer has pointed out the technical credentials of Mr. Powell to explain these issues.
Note that on AudioQuests own website, they have an "education/theory" page giving the TECHNICAL basis of their claims, e.g:
http://www.audioquest.com/directionality-its-all-about-noise/
Where do you think they are drawing these ideas from? Dreams they have at night? No, they are often appealing to all sorts of things - e.g. forms of radiation etc - known by science. Measurable.
Do you decry AudioQuest for appealing to engineering/scientific "explanations" in identifying problems and solutions? Not that I've seen. I don't suppose you'd be as impressed if they appealed to visions they had while on acid as the basis for their work.
But should someone ask for the type of technical validation the actual claims IMPLY...well THEN all of a sudden it's "Whoa, whoa there! Let's not presume this is a matter we'd use measurements ans science to determine!"
Well...how do you think they identified what they are trying to address if it wasn't measurable forms of radiation (and other effects) in the first place????
...anyone is compelled to tell you anything?
This is the retail industry.
At least in retail, I can choose whether to pay for my lack of information, or not!
;-D
[And you keep disparaging anyone who wants to bring science to bear on the subject.]
I am not disparaging anyone. I am merely pointing out that there are things that can’t be measured by science so even though some things can be and are the findings are inconclusive. I am only “disparaging” anyone who wants to only bring the science that proves their argument.
[It was a *technical* dissertation on the various forms of radiation that can enter an audio system: what they are, how it happens, what type of technical moves to make in order to eliminate it.
Note that Michael Fremer has pointed out the technical credentials of Mr. Powell to explain these issues.
Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/day-two-ces-2018-proof-ac-cables-ma...
Yes and as you have pointed out there is no way to measure if that affects audio at all. These people feel it does, you do not because it can’t be measured.
RH you seem to be missing my biggest point here. There are things that are not measurable in audio. These engineers at Audioquest and other companies feel there is a direct relationship to the things they are measuring and how it relates to audio but because there is no measurable way to prove it to you you aren’t convinced and that’s fine, don’t buy the stuff, don’t trust your ears.
They are using science and measurements where they can and the rest you have to have to experience yourself. If you don’t hear a difference, fine. Some people do and that is fine. There are a lot of people that are convinced they can and I am not going to disparage them especially when I know for a fact that science simply can’t explain why these people can.
Of course you were being disparaging. You implied that those who bring science into the equation, as I've been doing, are "zealots."
Yes and as you have pointed out there is no way to measure if that affects audio at all.
No, just the opposite. I keep saying if the cables alter the audio signal to an obviously audible degree, the difference SHOULD be measurable.
I work in post production sound. I'm manipulate sound all day long, and watch the differences appear in the waveform all the time.
Even in the relatively crude waveforms used in my sessions (relative to what you can get from software meant specifically for measuring sound) I can not only hear but SEE the result of even slightly manipulated sound.
If I adjust a clip with EQ, e.g. lower the bass a little, I often have to use at least 1 db and more often 2 to make a noticeable change. When I do so, the difference is clearly rendered in the new waveform compared to the un-EQ'd clip.
And I can see differences in dynamics etc. I can see differences in loudness. In distortion levels, etc.
It is baffling where you get this idea that a change in the audio signal could not be represented objectively via waveforms, and other measurements, soundmeters, etc. If that were the case, nobody could mix sound. Acousticians couldn't measure minute audible differences in room response, etc.
If you introduce something into the chain that alters bass, or high frequencies, dynamics etc - many of the elements so often claimed by those using expensive AC cables - that SHOULD show up in some measurable representation in the output signal (e.g. music track).
Again, it is just so inconstant to take the stance you seem to defend: that AudioQuest can measure the problem....but can't measure not the results of the solution.
But, I can see there doesn't seem to be much more we can talk about on this, so thanks for the conversation.
[Of course you were being disparaging. You implied that those who bring science into the equation, as I've been doing, are "zealots.”]
No I am saying the Zealots are the ones that refuse to believe that there are some things that aren’t measurable in audio. You can bring science into the equation all you want but don’t just pick and choose what you want to believe.
[No, just the opposite. I keep saying if the cables alter the audio signal to an obviously audible degree, the difference SHOULD be measurable.]
Should be being the key word there. Can you tell me how science can measure soundstage? What unit of measurement is used for that?
[Even in the relatively crude waveforms used in my sessions (relative to what you can get from software meant specifically for measuring sound) I can not only hear but SEE the result of even slightly manipulated sound.]
So what you are saying is every change in the sound can be measured by even a primitive sound wave? Hmmm don’t think so, see above.
[It is baffling where you get this idea that a change in the audio signal could not be represented objectively via waveforms, and other measurements, soundmeters, etc. If that were the case, nobody could mix sound. Acousticians couldn't measure minute audible differences in room response, etc.]
It’s baffling to me how you think that I have ever said that. What I have said is not all changes can be measured. There is a big difference between those two things.
[Again, it is just so inconstant to take the stance you seem to defend: that AudioQuest can measure the problem....but can't measure not the results of the solution.]
I never said they can measure the problem, I said there things they can measure that they believe as engineers can affect the sound but that there is no way to measure the affect it has on the sound. For example eliminating noise from the power lines. There is no way to directly measure how that affects sound but you can clearly measure how much noise is in the power and that they can get rid of it.
I repeat here RH the biggest thing I can’t seem to get across to you is some things like soundstage can not be measured, therefore not all things in audio can be measured. This then means that scientific measurements are a helpful tool to learn about some facets in audio but they don’t tell the whole picture like you want too believe.
Our ear/brain mechanism is far more sensitive than even the best measurements.
But that's not the case, or at least it's only half true.
There are plenty of things instruments are used to measure because instruments are more sensitive than our own senses. That's why we use measuring tools! That goes for audio as well: there are plenty of things instruments measure that your ears can't detect - from frequencies you can't hear, to distortion levels, among others.
As I've said, it's strange that audiophiles seem to have no problem understanding the results of a hearing test. Obviously the signals in a hearing test are measurable by instruments, but often can't be perceived by an individual. That's why the tests exist in the first place. Older Andiophiles don't normally come out of a hearing test with results saying their hearing caps at 13khz still declaring "I don't care what the test says, I can hear up to 20khz."
That just wouldn't be taken seriously. And yet many will still claim they hear distortions either understood to be under the level of perception. or that there is good reason to believe to be inaudible.
Of course science hasn't answered everything. But that shouldn't be used to suggest that a phenomena is therefore real and "hasn't been explained by science yet." Spooky or dubious ideas don't gain any validation by pointing out science hasn't explained everything.
First I'd think we'd want to know if something is really happening before we answer how it's happening.
We do know we have people claiming to hear differences in AC cables.
But what is the explanation? To presume those differences are real and therefore need explaining is to jump the gun and beg the question, ignoring the problems we know exist about human bias.
There was a time when people denied that capacitors "sound" because there were no measurements. So what? The definitely "sound".
There would be no problem with that statement if we know that capacitors were actually reliably identifiable in the first place.
Honestly, I don't know if they were or not. But if the "evidence" was "all sorts of audiophiles were sure they heard a difference" without any other control for bias, then the example just begs the question again.
You've taken part in blind tests and have now apparently discarded them in terms of your own criteria (if I understood correctly). You mention the blind tests that you aced...but I wonder about all the others? Have you passed every blind test, or was there nothing to learn from the ones you failed? Are only the ones you pass informative for you?
And it seems you will appeal to some of your own blind test results to disparage the claims of others who are skeptical of other audio claims. If acing some blind tests has informed your beliefs...what about my experiences? I've passed some, and didn't pass others. For AC cables, in sighted tests I was sure I heard a difference. Blind tested...I couldn't. If we are allowed to appeal to personal anecdotes about blind testing, why shouldn't my result inform me about the effects of bias and give me real reasons for skepticism?
Should I take only your experience of passing a few tests as being informative, and that I'm just an idiot for my own experience-derived skepticism?
I know it sounds all spoil-sporty, and I don't use blind testing for everything I buy, audio included. But then, I'm not trying to sell products with all sorts of claims about the product, nor am I insinuating anyone who doesn't hear what I claim to hear is a clothe-eared, blinkered idiot. Once we are in the realm of actually MAKING CLAIMS about reality, then there's nothing wrong with asking the same type of pressing questions we can ask about anything else.
As a total disbeliever in cables, I had argued many times that cables can’t make a difference, it’s placebo, etc. Well, that was until my system’s resolution improved, at which point I started hearing significant differences between cables. I had the same argument about vinyl vs. digital. How could vinyl sound different if the digital storage cannot degrade the quality of the bits. Well, at least I argued until I got a decent vinyl playing system. I went back and apologized to all my friends I argued with and told them they were right. I buy more records than them now :). Most people go through these stages and realize they were wrong later (if they manage to improve the resolution of their system, of course). I believe there are four things that account for good sound - clean power, quality signal path, good room acoustics, and synergy between the components. While cables can’t help with acoustics, they contribute to the other 3 factors. So why would they not make a difference?!?
This guy measured all possible types of cables:
He writes:
"...Sure, it's possible that "everything makes a difference!" As in most things in life, the wise man needs to ponder the claims a little further to divine the truth. At least when it comes to power cables, I think the wise man can comfortably walk away from such claims of audible differences and realize that a decent IEC cable is all that's needed - at least for low power devices like a DAC...."
And even, if a power cable makes an audible difference, the question is: how much should one spend on one rather than spending more on the hifi components to achieve the same gain.
I tested different cables on headphones: no difference found. I'd rather spend more on a better headphone than on a cable.
And I once read that the rep of a reputable loudspeaker manufacturer had forgotten to take speaker cables to the trade show. So he went to a hardware store and purchased a Black & Dekker power cable for lawnmowers. People loved the sound and the nice orange colour.
"This guy measured all possible types of cables:"...
I am a network engineer. We use state of the art network devices that can range anywhere from $20K to $200K+. All those network devices have very good capabilities to measure the bandwidth of the network traffic. In addition to that, we use several network monitoring tools that are some of the best on the market and also do a very good job of measuring network bandwidth. Occasionally, we would see some network packets being “dropped” on the network. All the bandwidth measurements showed that we are not exceeding 15-20% of the available bandwidth on the network. But why were we dropping data?
We created some custom measuring tools, that would measure at 1-millisecond granularity vs. the standard of 1-second. And what we saw was bursts of data that would utilize the full bandwidth for a very short period of time (corresponding to the network drops we’ve seen) that the typical 1s-based measurement tools could not detect.
How does that apply to measuring in Audio? Well, in one case, we saw that network packets were “dropped” and our measurement tools could not detect why. We had to improve the measurement tools. I suspect something similar is happening with audio. We can hear a difference between cables (given that we have good resolution system, otherwise there is no chance and cables do not make any difference). But we can’t measure it. Time to improve the measuring tools I guess...
Should I spend $4K for a power cable to connect a $2K amp? Absolutely not! But good quality components in a good resolution system definitely benefit from better power cords. Again, I was a total disbeliever, but they do make difference when your system’s resolution gets to a certain level.
VS,
How does that apply to measuring in Audio? Well, in one case, we saw that network packets were “dropped” and our measurement tools could not detect why.
So, can you please explain how you "saw" packets were being dropped?
Was it just a subjective feeling? Or did you actually detect the dropped packets with a computer? Or...?
We had to improve the measurement tools.
So your solution to determine what was going on was...to measure it.
I infer you detected the problem via technology, and measured the problem via technology. Am I right? Therefore, I'm left confused about why your experience leads to the idea there won't be objective, measurable evidence for what is going on in audio.
Companies like AudioQuest and others make technological claims about problems they have detected. It's not just "we hear a difference" it's actual engineering claims about what is happening, with appeals to measurable phenomena like radiation and other forms of distortion and interference.
How does it make sense that they can diagnose the problem due to measureable factors....come up with a purported technological "fix"...but suddenly the fix "isn't measurable."
How would they know they fixed it?
If you say suddenly they drop all the ideas of measurements and"they just listen" then this is to completely ignore everything we know about expectation bias and other perceptual errors.
Remember the claim is that the AC cables change the audio signal to a very significant degree - so much "you'd be an idiot or have bad ears" not to hear the difference. It changes the sound so much, we are being told it registers on a camcorder microphone.
As an engineer, does that not tell you it HAS to be a measurable difference? Audio itself is essentially a "measurement" system - detecting changes in the signal is *how it works.* Otherwise all we'd get to listen to is a sine wave. So the idea that the AC cords are altering the signal in the system, but it can't be measured, makes no sense.
And as I've pointed out: These companies would the the FIRST to show us measured proof if they could produce it. You see video demonstrations of their technical claims they've produced on the internet, but never ones that actually show the audio signal itself has been altered (that I've been able to find).
I'm at a loss why, as an engineer, you would not find this obviously suspicious. (Not necessarily of deceit, but simply whether the claims have the evidence one would want).
FWIW, another engineer on a different thread about the AudioQuest video who works with transmission lines says his experience casts doubt on the AQ claims regarding characteristic impedance for a 60 hz power cord.
"So, can you please explain how you "saw" packets were being dropped? Was it just a subjective feeling?"
Yes, it was subjective in the beginning. At least that's how it started. For example, when you are streaming video and drop packets, you see degraded quality. Those differences in video quality are as subjective as "differences" in the sound. Then, of course, we used a more systematic approach, by let's say, capturing packets at the source and destination and comparing the two. But that was to prove our subjective feeling was an objective problem.
Why companies like AQ don't do that, I don't know. I don't have their cables in my system and don't know how they work. Could it be because there is a lot of marketing BS? Absolutely possible! Could it be because the measuring technologies are not designed for these type of measurements? Absolutely possible. Could it be that it is beyond the technical expertise of a company like AQ to create measurement devices that can measure the difference? I truly believe so. Without going into too many details, the measurement device we created to measure those microbursts was only possible because we were able to piggyback to a 10+ year of FPGA development of a product we have built in-house. It was not easy! Not many companies can do that. And this is working with a digital signal (bits). I can't even imagine how complex it would be to do something similar for the analog signal coming out of our audio system!
Let me be clear. I am not trying to provide a scientific explanation of why power cords make a difference. Nor I am trying to prove that cables make a difference to people who don't believe it. If you can't hear it, good for you (I envy you about that). This is just a suggestion of why measurements may not work based on my real life experience in a completely different field. You may like it or not, and I am fine either way.
If this stereo system sounds so uncontained and loose without this particular power chord, then any stereo system without such a chord must be equally unbalanced. And you surely must be able to measure the difference.
Sometimes even measurements don't help. To insert some levity into this discussion, anyone remember HDMIgate from a couple of years ago?
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5540
Now, to be fair to audioquest, it sounded like a third party created the misleading work. Still, throwing gas on a fire.
The guy in the video surely told us lots of bogus over 15 mins or so.
... outgoing quality control tests AudioQuest performs on these AC power cords as part of the production process?
Do they make any measurements (beyond normal safety tests) and, if so, what parameters are being measured?
Or, if whatever it is alleged that makes these cords "special" cannot be readily measured, does someone listen to each and every one to confirm that the sound quality supposedly heard in the comparison test is actually present?
I have wasted my time in the past arguing with "audiophile" deniers who either don't have the ears, system or open mind to hear difference with patch cords, speaker wire, PCs, etc. I'm sad to see it spread here. Regardless of what this scientific genius thinks, the FACT is that large differences can be observed with different power cables. It's prob wrong but I'd be prone to deleting the accounts of people on audiophile forums who simply don't "believe" in hi-fi (or whatever you call it now).
If I don't have the system to hear differences in power chords, what do I deny and why should I purchase another power chord? And why don't manufacturers of "good" systems include a power chord that works fine? Everything fine, but the substandard power chord spoils it all - every single component by every single manufacturer. Aren't the hifi system manufactures the real deniers in your opinion - not the poor suckers to be milked by after-market salespeople?
...with so-so tires.
Everyone has to make a living.
You beat me to it. We have people here who are buying the automotive equivalent of an Audi A8 - and using the cheapest, entry-level Bridgestone tires they can get.
The problem with this discussion is that it involves clueless people who don't plan to do anything but be disruptive. They are saying everyone else is imagining things because they expect something to happen but some of the nay-sayers are not even testing anything out. They are just on here to express their non-tested beliefs. It's like someone coming on here and saying "Hey look, I'm a friggin' engineer and since you can't prove with an electronic response that the Beatles made good music, you are an idiot for liking them" If you don't believe in God, don't bother going onto religious websites and telling everyone they are full of shit. I say get rid of these trolls! They should go to A/V Forums where there are oceans of cluelesss people who don't believe amps, preamps, CD players, anything makes an audible difference because they are playing MP3s through their phones.
The problem with this discussion is that it involves clueless people who don't plan to do anything but be disruptive.
Can you explain to me why you feel you need to respond with insults, rather than with reason?
Can you do it without insults, I hope?
It's fascinating to be involved in these discussions. Notice that, at least in terms of myself, all the invective, insults and name calling have come from those defending the audibility of high end cables.
Why is that I wonder?
I've been very careful and nuanced, with no interest in insulting anyone. Not once have I declared "No cables make a sonic difference" or "you did not hear the difference in your cables."
All I've asked is that, if companies like AudioQuest claim their cable make such a difference to the sound of a system that they will charge many thousands of dollars just for an ethernet cable or AC cable, can I not have my Skeptic Hat on and ask for good evidence?
Isn't that just being a wise consumer? (Not to mention, being actually interested in the truth of claims about audio?)
Should I just be credulous in the face of every such sales pitch?
But dare someone ask these questions, he is shouted down as an "idiot" "retard" "clueless" etc. It's as if....you've insulted someone's religion.
Hey...that seems to be just the type of analogy you have made!
If you don't believe in God, don't bother going onto religious websites and telling everyone they are full of shit. I say get rid of these trolls!
Right. Should anyone enter a conversation about super expensive AC cables expressing any reservation or skepticism...OUT WITH THE HERETIC!
It's a very odd phenomenon.
But, again, I'd ask you to notice the lack of insults in my posts - not once calling anyone clueless or arguing they did not hear what they claim - and ask yourself why this need to insult is coming out in your post.
Is it that, when someone expresses skepticism about something you believe strongly in audio, it feels to you like a religious feeling is being attacked?
Thanks.
...who keeps asking "Why?"
Why?
Why?
I'm all for scientific research, discovering the wonders of God's great creation, learning how it works, how he put it together, how to improve quality of life, and on and on.
But I don't need measurements or scientific proof of any sort when I round the bend and see Yosemite Valley & Halfdome in the distance. It takes my breath away.
I don't need measurements to understand or verify my abundant love for my wife. She takes my breath away.
Measurements not needed when I smell the goodness she is creating in the kitchen as I finish my workday. No measurements or scientific proof needed when we sit down & enjoy a terrific meal.
The last thing I want is a measurement of the lovely bourbon I am sipping after dinner. I know it's good. I can taste it, measurements not needed.
I don't need measurements when, after inserting ZU Audio Event speaker cable for my Kimber 8TC that Alan Holdsworth's flying legato has more flow & body than I've experienced before, or that Jimmy Johnson's base runs deeper & has more articulation than I have ever heard.
My kind of A/B testing? Maybe I'm in the slow group, but on the spot, A/B testing moves too fast. Music is so complex, my brain can't sort it all out in the moment.
I have to live with a cable, power or otherwise, and experience a lot of music I know well through that product. More often than not, ah ha moments occur: "Wow, that has really lost something." Or, "Yikes, I've never heard it like that. What a nice improvement to this musical experience."
Not an engineer, and not an idiot. Cables, even power cables, make a difference. I've heard it. No measurement needed.
Agreed 100%. End of comment.
A few years ago my non-audiophile teenage son could hear the difference between interconnects - in the adjoining room! - between a particular Kimber and a particular Nordost - on a good but not great recording (I think it was one of the CD editions of Quadrophenia). . . I had only mentioned I changed interconnects. I got, "Oh Dad, this is a definite improvement!" And it sounded even better in the actual room.
While I agree with you on all that you stated, you must admit that you aren't "selling" your feelings about all those things. When companies are asking thousands for some cords, I can understand why some critics asks about measurements. Yes, all can go on as it is, but then our hobby will always be looked upon with sarcasm and humor. If these inventors can come up with a power cord that makes a difference, and I believe they have, then please come up with a way to measure and graph the differences. Frequency response differences, dynamic range differences, low bass extension differences, etc.
Homeopathic medicine makes a difference, no measurements needed.
Astrology works, no measurements needed.
My guru's hands emit healing energy from a distance. No measurements needed.
My crystal energy bracelet healed my headaches and re-energized my cells. No measurements needed.
Fred has a perpetual motion machine in his garage. I've seen it. No measurements needed.
Etc.
All those, and countless other similarly dubious claims would fit just as comfortably in your list, given they rely on essentially the same line of reasoning.
Perhaps you are totally comfortable with that fact.
Some of us who are just as passionate about high end audio hope for more - for actual understanding of what is going on, rather than leaving high end audio in a cloud of what seems it's own form of mystical thinking.
And we also don't want to be duped by advertising if we can help it.
Not too much to ask, is it?
...cut through that cloud and keep asking everyone else to do the work.
Why don't you do the research yourself or is that too much to ask?
Why don't you put the same effort in keeping all those toxic plastic items from the 99cent stores from ending up in the landfills and polluting the air and oceans?
Your concern seems hugely disproportionate to the issue.
"That Was your least effective argument"
Ok, but why?
I responded to someone claiming he didn't need measurements to know he was hearing a difference between cables.
Pointing out that the same idea can be, and is expressed by people promulgating ridiculous claims is a well known form of reductio ad absurdum argument. In other words: if your claim can also be used to support absurdities, you've got a problem. You have more work to do to distinguish between your claim, and the absurd claims.
If you can't do it, that's a problem.
So...why doesn't he, or you, "need measurements" to know an AC cable sounds different?
If it's back to "because I know what I hear" and "science can't explain it because science hasn't explained everything" that's not much better as the same reasoning is used by many people who believe many absurd things.
So the point is: Your belief may not be absurd. But then you should be able to distinguish it somehow from absurd beliefs by appealing to some form of evidence or reasoning not available to absurd beliefs.
How many here who can not hear the difference in cables have invested in good AC power conditioning to begin with?
It surprising that after approaching 200 posts, and maybe I missed it, but no one has cited Einstein here:
"Not everything that can be measured matters; not everything that matters can be measured." I hear Einstein was a pretty good scientist.
I've always wondered what PC he used in his stereo system at the time.
Hey guys, later to the party...
Obviously YouTube is not a good way to compare hi-fi given the lossy compressed audio, plus a camcorder capture is far from good (lossy compression as well). On top of it, the audio is clipped and with all the people making noise, cells phones beeping, and camera motion... You get the idea.
In any event, I went and grabbed the audio off YouTube and just extracted the Muddy Waters track at the end - Standard AC cable vs. AudioQuest AC. You can download it here:
https://www.amazon.ca/clouddrive/share/aWhKxFM03HAmm7vONRPe92ckx8GiX0FwD...
Give it an A/B comparison and "see" if you can hear a significant difference. I've included the amplitude analysis and yes the AudioQuest clip is marginally louder but not much (<1dB average).
Thanks for taking the time to check the stats on the audio. After the Audioquest HDMI cord issue I'll always be suspicious of the lengths that people go to regarding cords. That was just a shockingly brazen deception. The guilty individual isn't at AQ anymore, but he still works in the industry
Well as they say, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well :-).
Here's an updated comparison of the 2 samples of Muddy Waters' "My Captain" from the video:
https://www.amazon.ca/clouddrive/share/dERIIRsKNfOaYSht3GyAeX24KOH4zPxpE...
The clipped peaks were highly annoying so applied -1dB attenuation and used a better MP3 decoder, saved back as 24-bit FLAC. Recommend using the Foobar ABX tool and quickly switch between the 2 samples.
with all due respect to Mr. Fremer, why can't such clearly audible differences be charted or graphed in some way? I heard a somewhat more dynamic presentation, which some have stated as being louder. Surely that can in some fashion be charted, in the same way we show the differences between compressed and uncompressed audio signals in music are shown. Dynamic range increases, which is part of what I heard, should be able to be charted from the output of the music playing device. And I'm not talking about a cable manufacturer "bringing" in chart and graphs to prove their point, I'm talking about actual measurements at the live event. The presenter can say "You know what your ears just heard, now believe your eyes!" That is going to be the only way to prove once and for all that those of us who DO hear the difference are going to have any credibility with skeptics. It must be done!
"...why can't such clearly audible differences be charted or graphed in some way?" Probably because the state-of-the-art on measurement tends to lag behind the innovations. I suspect there will come a time when such things can be measured, then measured well. We're simply not there yet.
It is interesting how some people here seem to believe the science of measurement is static. Remember the THD wars of the 70s? Remember how that turned out? Gordon Holt also once wrote, "If it sounds good and measures bad then you're measuring the wrong thing."
I wonder if the power company would be allowed to work that way.
We could put UL out of business.
I imagine water delivery with, "Looks fine to me. That measurement stuff, well science."
As a matter of fact, among my professional responsibilities involves the measurement of young children's lead levels, along with linking these data to assorted achievement, social-emotional, executive functioning levels and the like. This is in a high poverty medium-large city. It makes trivial the piss-ant conversation among mental midgets like you. As a professional and a deeply personal responsibility to get the data right. They can't afford me to screw up.
Do you get my drift, Einstein? Also, as a matter of fact, the year 2059 state-of-the art of science and measurements (among but two) will be better than our current 2018 state-of-the-art. In other news, scientists also concluded water is wet. News at Eleven.
Do you simply take someone’s word for it if they say lead is or isn’t an issue?
Do you treat someone for lead toxicity based on a hunch?
We are talking power cords.
How do you relate the two experiences?
I love you, too, Max.
Hi Max,
Anton made a perfectly valid point about the apparent double standard a number of audiophiles seem to be using for high end audio, AC cables in particular.
When asked for measured verification of a company's claim that their expensive AC cable changes the sound, we get responses along the lines:
"It's not measurable" (even though the company is appealing to measurable phenemona in it's explanation of the problem they are "solving")
"Science doesn't know everything yet" (a response that has an incredibly dubious history, given it is used for virtually every weird thing anyone believes).
"Just because we can't measure it now, doesn't mean it won't be measurable in the future!" (Essentially a version of the last response, and can be made on behalf of any claim).
"Remember how some people thought X was happening, it couldn't be measured, but later it WAS measurable?" (Indeed. Sometimes that happens. But this just ignores number of controversial claims that DID NOT end up being validated - and those far overwhelm the very few that have been validated. So this is just another version of the first two responses "we can't demonstrate the truth of the claim...but MAYBE it's true!")
And the problem is that those promoting the "the sonic effects of these AC cables can't be measured" responses are usually presuming the phenomenon in the first place: that high end AC cables DO make a sonic difference.
How are they determining this? It's because when they listen, they they are just sure they hear a difference.
When the problems of our bias and sighted tests of this nature are brought up, they are simply waved away "Look, I CAN HEAR the difference, I don't need any of that science stuff to tell me what I can hear or can't hear!"
This thread is rife with such responses.
So Anton made a perfectly warranted, valid point about the fact we wouldn't allow power companies or those delivering our water supply to operate on this reasoning: "Sorry, no measurements are involved in providing support for our claims; we go on how it seems to us and that's good enough!"
You responded to his point simply by saying you MEASURE children's lead levels, and investigate the links those have with various outcomes for children, which MADE ANTON'S POINT.
Instead of recognizing this, you simply filled the rest of the post with non-sequiturs of insult and invective.
Anton's reply - far more civil and measured than your own! - again made the point that you do not just take people's word or strong feelings as your method; you measure led counts. Your line of work demands empirical verification....for obvious reasons...when you really want to know what's true.
And, yet again, instead of explaining the apparent double-standard, you just replied doubling down with more insults and invective.
Why not just try to answer the point?
It seems your field of study overlaps with the medical field. So you have to be aware of standard good practices in medical studies, right? My son was just involved in a study for a new drug and, as is standard practice, it was a double-blind, placebo controlled study. Why is this standard practice? Surely you know it's because of the very well known influences of bias and how it can mislead interpretation of the results.
The question then is, why is there a double standard when it comes to the field of audio? Why would audiophiles somehow be invulnerable to the problem of bias in their sighted listening sessions? That would make no sense. And yet we get "It can't be measured but I KNOW I HEARD IT!" As if the problem of human bias just doesn't apply to audiophiles.
It's one thing to say, for instance, that everyone measuring every bit of gear they buy, and/or blind testing it, is impractical. Sure, I certainly go along with that. Which is why I wouldn't fault anyone for doing so.
I have tube amps and I've put a bunch of damping techniques in place for my new turntable rack. Have I blind tested the tube amp with a solid state amp? No. In my turntable rack, I've made some modest effort to measure the effects of damping, but am I sure it makes any effect on the sound? No. In fact, I doubt I'd be able to tell a difference listening to the system with or without certain damping in it. But it was fun going through the process and learning, though!
The thing is I'm not trying to sell things to other people for lots of money, on the claims they DO sound different, and with all sorts of technical claims why. And, where I have not been very rigorous in evaluating things, I'm not going to declare "my ears are RIGHT and anyone who believes otherwise is a Troll/Idiot/Retard!"
But what we get here and in so many who defend tweaks like AC cables, is an absolute vehemence, variations of: "I can hear it so it's true, if you can't your equipment must be of poor quality or your ears suck! And if you argue skeptically against MY CLAIMS, then YOU are a fool and a troll!"
Rational discussion should not look like this.
And if you enjoy buying higher end AC cables...enjoy!
Cheers,
Hi RH,
Was the science of lead poisoning settled in 1991 when the Center for Disease Control n(CDC) set the benchmark at 10 micrograms per deciliter? Or in 2005 when the CDC then set the benchmark at 5? Um, no. We are seeing an explosion of new information and will continue to do so certainly for the rest of my life.
Elevating one's view of "science" to be akin to the pre-Reformation Church is just ideology. You are intelligent enough (in contrast to Anton) to know when you stoop to equating anyone who dare questions your own view of science to, oh, astrology - RH, you know you lost the discussion.
The "metric" to judge people is: do you know what you don't know? Do you respect what you don't know? You can't teach a know-it-all, regardless of their education levels. In my chosen profession it is necessary to respect what one does not know; it's the key to growth.
Anton answered a series of legitimate assertions with ridicule. Mikey went ahead and spanked him earlier. You answered my response with a series of your own insults. So go ahead and post a few thousand more words on your own perverted view of "science" and keep the insults coming... enjoy!
Max,
Your reference to lead poisoning measurements already falls into the problem I just outlined. It's the "science doesn't know everything yet, we keep learning" reply.
Again...that's obvious. But how is THAT supposed to support the particular claim that AC cables make a sonic difference?
If I said that placing a small black wooden box in my trunk increased my car's top speed and vastly increased it's fuel efficiency, you would rightly be skeptical and ask for a good explanation for the claim, and good evidence. My “feeling” or “belief” that it was the case, would not constitute the type of evidence you’d want.
I could then repeat word for word your response about changing science of led counts, and you would immediately recognize it as a red-herring; a non-answer.
You are being told something obvious, that you already know: science doesn’t know everything yet. But we still have to have good reasons for accepting a claim NOW. You wouldn’t take a promissory note that “maybe, in the future, my claims about my black box will be verified with good evidence.” ANY wild claim can be adopted on that reasoning.
It could be that the science you currently use to measure led counts is wrong. Even totally wrong. But is that reason to abandon your current understanding and method? Of course you won't do that. It's not rational. You’ll demand good evidence for altering your current understanding of led counts, before accepting your current understanding is to be abandoned.
Right?
Given you would not accept the same answer you gave (appealing to the changing science of led counts) as being relevant to my claim about a black box effect on gas mileage, why would you think we should accept this type of response as if it had any relevance, or gave any support, to the claims that expensive AC cables transform the sound of audio systems? It’s just as much a non-sequitur.
And you have continued to ignore the relevance of what science understands about human bias.
Elevating one's view of "science" to be akin to the pre-Reformation Church is just ideology. You are intelligent enough (in contrast to Anton) to know when you stoop to equating anyone who dare questions your own view of science to, oh, astrology - RH, you know you lost the discussion.
That’s unfortunately just a straw man.
Appealing to the very well documented and heavily studied phenomenon of human bias is not akin to dogmatic religious ideology. That characterization is simply an evasion of having to deal with the evidence. And, again, if an operation trying to determine the led count in a local water supply was greeted by the water company saying “your demands amount to religious zealotry and dogmatism” you wouldn’t buy it for a second.
There is a great deal of rancour at even suggesting anyone’s experience of AC cables can be infected with bias. If you or anyone else feels “insulted,” that’s a misplaced idea of “insult.” One may as well refuse to engage in any scientific protocol that attempts to weed out bias as “insulting” because it implies you may be susceptible to bias.
As for analogies to astrology, far from “losing the discussion,” this is how reason works.
If someone produces a line of reasoning in their argument, you examine it for consistency and it’s logical consequences. If the SAME line of reasoning can be used to conclude absurdities, or contradictions, this means you have got something to fix in your reasoning.
The SAME line of reasoning many are giving here for believing AC cables change the sound - “It may not be measurable by science, but I know it to be true from experience” - is used by astrologers (and by people defending any number of other dubious beliefs). That’s a problem if you are actually trying to provide GOOD REASONING. If you want high end audio claims about cables to rise above the defence we see for astrology, then you have to go back into your reasons and do better, produce better evidence.
I wonder if you could actually demonstrate (with reasoned argument) that the above represents on a “perverted” view of science, rather than simply throwing out such smears.
Cheerio,
*apologies, should have done better going through for spell-check errors there..."lead"...*
Cheers!
are something you seem to know something about, having set up innumerable examples of both here. You accuse me of doing what you have yourself dispensed. So much verbiage (more than all the rest combined), so little humility. You are not retarded nor an idiot; you are clearly highly intelligent. But (at least here) you are dishonest and lack humility. But, hey, make a liar out of me, which maybe you will, having been charitable towards Mendo's excellent suggestions.
As I have repeated: I haven't claimed AC cables don't make a sonic difference; I don't know that they do not. I haven't claimed to know anyone's experience hearing a difference is false. I have admitted I do not have high levels of confidence about some of my own system choices. I think I'm just as prone to bias as any other person.
Discussing these issues with other audiophiles isn't just an exercise in dogmatism; I do think it's good to have some of the thinking in high end audio challenged. But it's a way of having my own thoughts on the matter publicly challenged, so that I may encounter good reasons to amend my stance.
I did my best to engage your responses. From my point of view, taking your replies seriously enough to think about and respond to them with arguments (not mere insults) is a form of giving respect.
I'm sorry you could find nothing to respect in my replies.
Nonetheless, thanks for your time!
RH, with your post here, thank you, you do command respect - and it turns out we have significant common ground: I don't know either. As I posted early, my experience with power cords is limited.93% of this for me is strictly I don't know. Like you I'm not in a position to test this stuff out; maybe in a year; I'm in the college years and other child-centered stuff. Other power issues need to be fixed first. Then I'll see and go modest, which has worked for me with every piece of my gear. Mikey has worked for me, too, so far. He is thoughtful in his approaches.
I mean, I seriously hope you don't believe Einstein was talking out of his ass when he observed "Not all things that can be measured, matter; not all things that matter can be measured." I have in my office, also from Einstein: "If we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called 'research'."
Thanks again.
It's ironic to me that I took such a drubbing from Michael here, given my long admiration for his reviews. I had audio physic virgos because of his reviews, and continue to enjoy my CJ premier 12 tube amps, guided by his review long ago. For me, Michael Fremer can nail the "voice" of a speaker in his review better than just about anyone else. So I'll take my drubbing...and continue to read his reviews and appreciate his videos.
On the topic of being open-minded, one of the speakers that surprised me most, that I reviewed (when I was reviewing) was, of all things, the Shun Mook Bella Voce Speakers! I was (and am) a skeptic about the claims associated with their mpingo discs, but wow did they produce a gorgeous sounding speaker!
Take care,
RH
Try reading the thread again. I think you don't know how reply stacking works, either!
Try it, I dare ya!
So, when did you stop measuring lead levels and just go with your gut?
Or, how do you decide the best remediation interventions? Certainly not by measuring anything, right?
Plus, science isn't settled, so who on God's green earth should try to measure things, anyway?
Would you buy therapeutic agents for treating lead toxicity based on someone telling you their theory of lead, you agree with it, and then not bothering to actually measure what it is they are claiming to do with their therapy?
You'd settle for stuff like that?
Tell us how the subjective part of your work that trumps the objective. Even behavioral evaluations and social measurements strive for standardized utility and use measurement, the exact opposite of what you are defending with your unhinged AC power cord rants.
I think you are simply just making stuff up at this point and are paying no attention to your own contradictions.
As a favor, check your own lead levels. Or, not, since the science isn't settled.
_
Anyway, to get back on point, this demo certainly does seem to be an indictment of just how effective the power conditioner was that they plugged these cords into.
Just how crappy is the AC coming out of their line conditioner that we need to keep piling on with AC power cords?
"As a favor, check your own lead levels. Or, not, since the science isn't settled..." Maybe with your superior mind you can ask, for example, Theodore Litsky, or Peter Simon or Debra Cory-Schlecta, whose expertise dwarfs my own knowledge. Oh wait - what could they know compared to you? After all, what does Michael Fremer know about audio compared to you?
I demand a better quality troll.
That's kind of what I was trying to say in my previous post...
Oh...Mikey, you've successfully fished out the cable skeptics again. Are ANY of them really audiophiles and music junkies? I've never met ONE audiophile who has anything resembling a hi-res system whose system is wired up with lamp cord and crappy interconnects?
How come no photographer has to provide evidence that this lens causes, "purple fringing in low light," or something of that sort? Because the expected to see it.
Marketer of fancy accesories: "Here...wipe your lens with this special cloth and it will go away?" The reply would be, "Nope, still there." They wouldn't sell any. Confirmation Bias exists but it being WAY oversold here. Why? These trolls don't trust their subjective selves. "No this McD's burger is the same. Same fat content, flour in the bun. Should be a hamburger. You pissed your money away on that $12 burger. The numbers say so."
No food critic has to A/B a hamburger–or no photographer has to look at this photo for two seconds then have another shoved in their face)? This point was already made in a post above, but it bears repeating.
We don't trust our audio senses much. And, FWIW, I can guarantee Mr. Fremmer's (and many audiophiles) have audio cortex that functions at a level massively different than the "confirmation bias" trolls here.
Does anybody remember when jitter wasn't understood (or did anybody have a NO clue how much it mattered); then Radio Shack had a portable player that cached the data into RAM first (greatly reducing jitter) and they accidently had a giant killer on their hand?
My point: We often don't know why something does what it does. There is so much in audio we can measure that is important, and so much that is important that we can't measure (because we wither don't understand it enough to even try to measure anything, or this isn't the economy of scale to care to develop anything).
Also, did anyone see the new Shunyata ad where they now have a break off company to serve the medical community? There power equipment so changed what what cardiologists could "see" because off a noise reductions that they made a break-off medical company?
A few years ago I put crappy cables (though well engineered and measuring) in my entire system and ist sounded like total ass. Why? I wanted it too. It only cost $30 for all the cables so I wanted it too.
Hi Mendo,
I wonder if you might be leaping to some harsh conclusions a bit too fast.
I was asked earlier to detail my equipment, which I did on this page, this post here:
https://www.analogplanet.com/comment/555623#comment-555623
My father was a jazz musician music teacher, my mother a piano teacher, our house was filled with instruments from 2 pianos, drums, sax, trumpet, guitar, bass guitar, etc. Grew up playing several instruments, and played in bands.
I am obsessed with music of most genres. Have tons of vinyl, digitized my huge CD collection years ago. And I listen to music every chance I get.
I've been fascinated by the comparison of real vs reproduced sound most of my life, and I've worked in post production sound for 30 years. I'm recording real life sounds and manipulating them every day.
I also reviewed speakers for a while in an on-line high end audio ("sujectivist") mag (years ago now).
Do I get to be in the audiophile/music lover club yet?
As you can see in my equipment description, I only use meager belden speaker cable, and plug everything into the wall or pretty cheap power bars.
In your view, do I have to buy more expensive AC or speaker cables to be considered a "real music lover/audiophile?" I mean...does being in the hobby really revolve around if you uncritically accept that expensive AC cables make a big difference? And it's not like my own opinions have been formed in a vacuum. I've had super expensive AC cables to try. I've listened to speakers I own (and many others) hooked up to $40,000 worth of cabling.
I haven't even said they don't make a difference. Just that it seems there should be better evidence for it than I've seen presented.
What is it about the attachment to expensive cables that, should someone not share your enthusiasm or conclusions about their sonic effect, you and many others feel compelled to call that person a "troll?" (And I've been called a "retard" and "idiotic" and other insults).
Why do you, and others here, seem to feel that everyone in the hobby need to be in lock-step agreement, and should anyone dissent on a subject like cables...they are to be castigated?
Something to ponder?
...and report back.
Most people are happy "shopping".
...a study on "Shopping Behavior".
"Why people buy expensive things..."
I have a microscope that can magnify 430 times what my eye could perceive without it, and that's only 'medium power.' Therefore, since it can provide such detail, it should provide even finer vision if I were to turn the objectives into a pair of glasses!
Do you see anything wrong with that idea?
Shunyata or other line filters for micro-electronic equipment might be able to allow for reducing noise levels in electrophysiology medical procedures, but this is at the level of taking a noise level from 0.05 millivolts (50 microvolts) to 0.01 millivolts or lower.
For that cardiology adapted machine, try putting something the size of an audio level signal through it and what do you think happens? The noise filter can't handle the current or dynamic range of the larger signal. It isn't designed for a power range that could run thousands of times higher in amplitude and current.
If you plugged the cardiology filter into your AC line and tried to run your system through it, you'd be in for a sad surprise.
Just like expecting a 43X microscope lens to give me super-vision, plugging a microvolt filter into even a flea watt driven system would not be able to accommodate the huge relative load and dynamic range.
We should at least compare apples to other apples.
The other thing that struck me about the Shunyata video is what I'd pointed out before: The results were objectively measurable!
That's the point of the video; they wouldn't have simply produced someone saying "I really feel like we had reduced noise levels."
The video shows the measured noise level differences.
The point this makes is that:
1. The stance that the technical claims made by these companies suddenly go into the "unmeasurable" zone in their actual effects, is handwaving. Clearly, IF they are making a difference, it can be measured.
2. When these companies actually think they have objective measurements to support their claims, they make a point about showing us.
It's therefore suspicious that they are not producing similar videos demonstrating the objectively verifiable changes in the sound signal using their AC cords.
If they find a difference they can show "Look, see, it's not b.s, you can measure it!"
But when asked "Ok, let's see the measurements for the alteration of the audio signal that your products produce." Then we get....marketing.
"Also, did anyone see the new Shunyata ad where they now have a break off company to serve the medical community? There power equipment so changed what what cardiologists could "see" because off a noise reductions that they made a break-off medical company?"
Do you have any links to this information?
"I've never met ONE audiophile who has anything resembling a hi-res system whose system is wired up with lamp cord and crappy interconnects?"
In fact I bought a pair of high end speakers from a guy using lamp cord and zip cable with his $67,000 JBL Project Everest speakers and bridged McIntosh 275 setup and it sounded GREAT. And that's far from the only such person I know.
P.S. on Shunyata's medical sister company - they are making filters. That's a far cry from $2000 power cables.
Because I can. I offer no explanations. I could give a rats ass what anyone thinks. To be quite honest, I have some of the most expensive audio equipment, cables, cords, etc. that money can buy but it only sounds a little better than my 1970’s sound system when I was 17. Maybe I’m old (50’s), maybe my hearing sucks, maybe I smoked too much Alcapulco Gold back then, but I don’t care, the stuff looks good. So, while I’ve enjoyed RH’s posts, and believe he makes valid points, I’ll continue to drop tons of coin on audio equipment simply because I can. No excuses of how this multi-colored cable or silver lined power cord does this or that. I don’t care that they don’t make a difference. I have the means to buy it and that is that.
Although I'd be tempted to give to a deserving charity that could put the $$$ to good use instead...
It's your money after all of course. Carry on.
He kind of reduced our hobby to its foundation.
give about 10% of my gross earnings to charity every year. Without revealing too much, that's a lot of donations. I grew up in a lower income, but through a lot of work, skill, and a ton of luck (being at the right place at the right time) I'm very fortunate to live a very good life. But I did realize that having a lot of money doesn't make you happier or more gracious. It just allows you to buy more expensive toys.
or in the case of some commenters here - including the author himself - to buy more wire with which to allegorically hang oneself or one's credibility.
RH,
I don't own a single mega-expensive cable. Nearly all the cables I've made, so it's not that I need to have expensive cables. In fact, I think that in all of the audio world cables are the most overpriced and marked up. Just look at year old Audioquest sales that happen nearly continuously. I also use the term cable bandits. I do believe cables can, and do make a substantial difference. I remember years ago I was at an audio show in SF and every system that was wired with Siltech had this life all the other systems just missed. Coincidence? I liked the look of the cables? I don't know. I know I like certain kinds of hops better than others and Coca Cola better than Pepsi. I don't need to have my experience validated with math. It would be cool if somebody could tell me why scientifically I like Coke better, but I doubt they will be able to.
Rh, definitely sound an audiophile and music junkie. I do believe that science plays a huge role in audio. We couldn't make much worth anything with out it. That said, there are tons of things that humans just "know" that science doesn't understand and can't quantify–yet. That cables sound sound different could certainly be one of those, yes?
I suggest you borrow/buy Wire World's (I believe it was theirs) wire comparator and experiment for yourself. I did once and it was illuminating.
As to power cables, I was in the they don't matter crowd until once until I switched out a decent one for a high-end homebrew using a Chris Venhaus recipe and some very good plugs. Wow. It was like I got a new amp that was twice as powerful. Put the old one back in and the ballon deflated. My friends and I wrote down our impressions privately and then shared out. Very similar verbiage even. If it was all my imagination, my mind is more incredible than I ever knew.
I even polished all the ends with Flitz metal polished in the whole system and the sound improved. Less noise, more transparency. YMMV. This has been a interesting conversation. Maybe someday we'll get to the bottom of this debate.
Interesting, Mendo, and thank you for the recommendations.
I have to admit, though, that currently my money is pouring into other aspects of my system (getting new subwoofers integrated...)
Why would they demo a power cord between the preamp and the CD player? What kind of power supply did the preamp have? Switched mode?
Given I've taken up a lot of pixels on this thread, I just wanted to sign off saying:
Thanks to Michael Fremer for providing the food-for-thought video, and all others who commented.
Clearly the title of Michael's post is an acknowledgement of the controversy that surrounds the claims made for high end AC cables.
Our hobby is made of folks who hold a wide range of opinions, from "extreme subjectivism" to "extreme objectivism" and plenty in between. I personally have always found myself with a foot in both sides - enjoying the subjective, descriptive side of the hobby, all the crazy and wonderful equipment designs, and playing around with some audio gear that the most fervent "it has to measure right" audiophiles would think a waste of time. Yet I also seek a coherent understanding of "how things are" and this keeps my skeptic hat on.
I don't wish to engage in special pleading for the claims of my own hobby.
So with a bit of downtime I had, the video claims seemed an opportunity to argue for and defend a cautious approach to the claims of about high end audio cables. Which is why I tried to answer as many posts as I could.
It's interesting that it's fine to be passionate about one's own beliefs - that AC cables make an obvious difference, the superiority of vinyl (as Michael has passionately advocated for decades), etc - well that's great! Who's against being passionate in a hobby right?
But should someone hold a different opinion they are willing to defend, well that's just zealotry. "Why are you so passionate about this???!!!" Well...this hobby is a passion for most of us. Many of us really care about knowing whether someone has produced new insight into the technology of our hobby...or not. That's why there are so many audio discussion groups.
I don't know if AC cables make a sonic difference or not. I'm still skeptical. But I'll keep an eye out for good evidence. And I'll be the first to buy a high end AC cable should I encounter such evidence.
Anyway, much obliged for the conversation. I eagerly await more great videos from Stereophile and Analog Planet!
...people.
Not much about wire.
That's because we (the scientific and engineering community) know pretty much all there is to know about it within the narrow parameters that concern electricity and frequencies/energy that's audible to the human ear.
A few observations.
I carefully(!) watched the entire video and didn't see/hear anything indicating "Proof That A.C. Cables Make a Big Sonic Difference".
I jumped back and forth between the "before" and "after" listening segments and heard no difference.
(Detractors will explain that the video camera cold not capture the distinction, my headphones aren't good enough, etc.)
The presenters' second point is regarding transients ("slam"), and seems to indicate a regular power cord doesn't properly support them. His explanation is that the first transient empties power reserves and robs power from subsequent transients when they occur in rapid succession. So, if we can measure volume in both decibels and volts, shouldn't we be able to measure a transient that was fully supported and compare it to a transient that was robbed of power? Last time I checked an o-scope could measure such things as current and voltage with extraordinary, micro-level accuracy. If the claims are true, why don't power cable manufacturers publish measurement results to support their marketing?
Has anyone looked at a wall outlet lately. In my home they are attached to the house wiring in two ways: brass-screw and spring-clip. In both cases the contact area is very(!) small, less than 1/16" for a spring-clip and about 1/4" for a brass-screw. If current is limited by a power cord, and a large power cord solves the problem, how does the large power cord overcome the problem that occurred at the outlet connection?
The presenter claims that a power cord provides filtering and shielding. The shielding claim seems to have some merit because any wire can act as an antenna. But filtering? If that's true, shouldn't power cord manufacturers claim that longer power cords are better because they can filter more?
(hope I haven't given them an idea ;)
It seems clear to me that what we are dealing with is a demonstration that was contrived to produce an audible difference among power cords. This was not a scientific experiment and does not justify any conclusions beyond the specific case.
I do not question Mr. Fremer's description of what he heard, but would have expected him to be more reserved in his conclusions.
Back in the tube days, when I was in the business, we commonly ran the whole array of tube equipment plugged into the sockets on the preamp, thus powering a whole system through the preamp's stock power cord (and power switch).
This included McIntosh gear. McIntosh provided several AC sockets on the rear panels of their preamps, so apparently they planned for that.
"I do not question Mr. Fremer's description of what he heard, but would have expected him to be more reserved in his conclusions."
I normally wouldn't either, but I tend to notice that whenever somebody begins to take things personally or resorts to ad hominem or insults rather than engaging an argument on its merits or in a logically consistent fashion, they are usually wrong. Fremer conducted himself poorly here (or, was a poor conductor of himself - for the sake of pun) and almost immediately began to insult or denigrate the poster who disagreed with his audible observations at a trick demonstration put on by the biggest tricksters of them all, Audioquest.
So I do actually question Mr. Fremer's grasp on reality at this point. I at least think that he's a total sellout to an industry upon which he relies for his livelihood and, well, we all know why conflicts of interest are either illegal or frowned upon in other walks of life.
This type of discussion is so akin to fights over veracity of religion that it is best to stay away — no-one will ever change their minds.
But I wanted to comment on one aspect of these arguments that strikes me.
Aspirin is a true wonder drug. It reduces inflammation, aches and pains. It is proven to reduce heart attacks and a growing body of evidence points to potential reduction in the onset of Alzheimer’s. I probably left out a few. Aspirin costs less than a penny a tablet and no-one disputes or discusses its merits.
Time and again acupuncture and homeopathy are proven, in controlled tests, to be completely useless (but generally also harmless). Both “treatments” start in the hundreds of dollars and their proponents defend them with, well, religious fervor.
I have come to believe that the less provable a concept is, the more fanatical will its fans also be. They will denigrate science — BTW, would there ever have been music reproduction without science? — evidence, controlled tests to protect their idol. Kale, anyone? Or just look at the length of this thread. It is some type of human flaw. Or maybe it allows us to live and imagine.
One last point. With the exception of a few older motors in turntables, NOTHING in hifi world ever runs on AC. Every component has a painstakingly designed AC to DC conversion and regulation system inside — the power supply — which eliminates all wrinkles in incoming power. Ironically “noise” i.e. higher frequencies are the easiest to get rid off. Most effort goes into eliminating the 50 or 60Hz line frequency.
Think of a toilet flush. As long as you let it fill up, when you flush it, does it ever matter if the incoming water was running smoothly or came in spurts? That is exactly how the power supply works. Many components will run a few seconds to a minute if you unplug them. That is the internal toilet flush emptying. Do you really think ANY power cable can suffocate a component that long?
All those "studies" that prove the non-efficacy of acupuncture and homeopathy are so poorly designed and executed that the results are meaningless.
But this is not the place for this discussion.
The less provable an idea is, the more dogmatic its adherents. And I guess this makes sense. But in the case of power cables, it IS provable that there is no audible difference supposing each cable under test is of the same equivalent AWG and sufficiently shielded - to meet UL standards or whatever standards apply in other countries' electrical codes.
RH..."I don't know if AC cables make a sonic difference or not. I'm still skeptical. But I'll keep an eye out for good evidence. And I'll be the first to buy a high end AC cable should I encounter such evidence."
I hope your next encounter with the unknown will be in a movie theater or TV....Not on an audio forum
Michael Fremer, since you are so convinced, I look forward to you proving this through your own level-matched blind listening test. If the differences are as stark as you contend, then this should be easy.
If you have not heard what a good AC cable can do to a good stereo system, then you should not judge.
Good AC power cords and interconnects WILL make a "good" system sound "great". I have been very happy with what" Synergistic Research" cables have done to my system. I already had a good sounding system, but it just made it THAT MUCH better.
Like all of this stuff, it's a cumulative effect. The more you build, bit-by-bit, the better your system will sound. Also, If you are going to invest in AC cables, make sure you get a good power conditioner and replace your wall outlet.
Everything matters when it comes to sound. I would still put speakers, amplifiers and sources higher on the list of things that make a difference, but if you have all that dialed n and you want to push your system to it's MAXIMUM potential, invest in some really good cables (AC and interconnects) . You will not be disappointed.
Again, if you have not spent time actually listening to this stuff in person, then don't comment on what you think it can or can't do. It just makes you look foolish.
"Good AC power cords and interconnects WILL make a "good" system sound "great".
You can't just group all types of cables together like that. Analog signal cables, i.e. speaker cables and interconnects definitely make a difference. Digital cables do not and there are numerous articles, tests and experiments out there to prove this.
The AC mains cable "debate" is a veritable third-rail (electricity pun intended) lately, but again there is no definitive proof or demonstration in a controlled environment with known equipment that shows or proves it. Whatever you hear in your system on your time is called the placebo effect, and whatever the demo that this article discussed purportedly showed is subject to all kinds of potential trickery and tampering. And we all know that AQ has been known to do this (at least their re-sellers have and AQ did nothing about it despite being aware until the greater audio community at large started calling them out).
A simple power cable that conducts AC energy to the AC-side of your amplifier's power supply and which sufficiently rejects any RF or EMI interference is no different or better than another cable that also conducts sufficient energy and rejects noise/interference. An argument might be made for a power conditioner, but a well designed power supply in any component should filter any transient or spurious frequencies out well before DC rail voltage is presented to the corresponding circuitry.
If the argument is that some power cables conduct more electricity than others, I say that's one of the reasons we have standards like AWG and any wire of the same AWG and same shielding will conduct 60hz 120V AC energy the same as any other, with perhaps very slight differences. If you see a video showing the difference in transient or peak AC current draw by Shunyata, he's not using the same AWG in each cable. Period. But even if you did plug that "inferior" cable into your system, it would be capable of providing enough or more current than 99% of all "audiophile" or professional audio devices would ever need to draw.
Controlling for those kinds of things (AWG, shielding, the rest of the equipment, etc.) anyone who hears a difference between equivalent power cables is either experiencing the placebo effect or being tricked in some way.
This is NOT the case with speaker wires or interconnects as they are actually in the signal path, but even those perceived differences are exaggerated as test after test has shown.
Quite simply, there is no reason to spend over $100 on any cable of any length for home audio use and if you were to participate in a double blind ABX or other comparison study with sufficient sample sizes, you (or I) would not be able to tell the difference or correctly identify the "better" cable more than 50% of the time. Period.
Then blames the anti- group for being "dogmatic" or "zealous" or any number of descriptors that adequately describe anyone who religiously believes that a power mains cable makes an audible difference without any hard data or ABX/blind testing to back it up.
In the forever discussion about why AC Cables can make a difference, has anyone thought that part of the reason isn't that after market cables are better, but that the stock cords are worse.
Pages
|
Equipment Reviews | |
The Gruvy Awards | |
Blogs Analog Tips | Columns Music | |
Show Reports | |
News Resources |
© 2024 AnalogPlanetAVTech Media Americas Inc.
All rights reserved