On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:56:00 +0300, Fella wrote:

I am NOT going to deny what I heard and perceived so as not to "draw the
ridicule" of some propeller head quack such as yourself.

The problem is that it didn't really exist in the physical soundfield,
whatever your imagination tells you.

Don Pearce wrote:

No, I don't think so. The point is that it should have been clear to
you within a very few posts that you wee suggesting things that were
patently ridiculous.

You DO NOT know that for sure.

Yes, we do - that's the difference between us.

No matter which hole you squeeze your
patronizing attitude out of, or how many ribs you injure.

Instead you persisted and
peopled got ****ed off with you.

What persistence? I just answered any questions that requested more detail.

No, you made wild claims that could never be substantiated under blind
conditions.

Some propeller head quacks approached the whole issue with blaring
prejudice, belittling and anger from the very beginning.

Micro-perimeter, robotic, propeller head quacks such as yourself carry
the belief that anything you do not yet have knowledge of, or even
*familiar* of or how to measure *yet* simply does not exist. You are
completely closed to *anything* that might present an effort to you in
terms broadning your horisons. Pathetic.

Nope, we simply pointed out that you were not listening under
controlled conditions. When you *did* try such a test, and got the
expected null result, you still persisted in your wild claims about
'timing' and the like. Now that really *is* dumber than dumb......

So consider this a lesson learned ..

What do you see when you look in the mirror, a balding low-life
worthless propeller-head quack or some majestic bald eagle?

I see an experienced engineer. You see someone who refuses to listen
to reason.

Jeeesus,
"consider this a lesson learned" what a ****ing irritating patronizing
attitude fercrissakes you need to get your nose rubbed in the dirt,
would do you and this attitude problem of yours some good.

Clearly, learning lessons isn't your bag..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Murray Peterson wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in
:


I've always found that trying to win an argument by threatening the
other party is a sure winner. I'm sure the spectators to this thread
are nodding their heads sagely and saying, "Yup, Fella is clearly
right here - he wants to get violent".


He lost any credibility long before that.....Somewhat associated question -- can anyone even stand to stay in an audio
"boutique" store for more than a few minutes ..

My my, talk about credibility.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:56:00 +0300, Fella wrote:


I am NOT going to deny what I heard and perceived so as not to "draw the
ridicule" of some propeller head quack such as yourself.


The problem is that it didn't really exist in the physical soundfield,
whatever your imagination tells you.


You were there? Another quack master of the universe propeller head out
of the bunch..

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


This is also (unfortunately) true. I suppose it could be due in
part to the fact that many of those experienced in listening to
many high resolution systems do not have the technical background
to explain why they hear differences in areas where "basic
theory" says it shouldn't be happening. For that reason, they
just avoid the question--understandable but unfortunate.

The results of close examination of situations where differences are heard
"where basic theory says it shouldn't be happening", is that they aren't
hearing differences, they just think they are.

On the other hand, the folks who have the technical background to
actually explain some of these differences won't even take the
opportunity to listen to some comparisons of components (on
systems that are actually capable of revealing differences)
simply because they have already convinced themselves that those
differences can't (and therefore don't) exist.

How many times does one need to waste time with situations where differences
are heard "where basic theory says it shouldn't be happening", and it turns
out to be that they aren't hearing differences?

In the same sense that the technical person considers his
knowledge of theory in audio as absolute, the high-end audiophile
press reviewer considers his extensive experience with various
systems as absolute.

The difference is that true scientific knowledge is reliable, while so many
of the wild perceptions of high end audio fail any and all tests for
reliability.

The technical person won't try to figure out
how these things might exist and how to measure them so the
audiophile leans towards believing the ear is more sensitive than
any test instrument.

In my case the technical people first put the audiophile's perceptions to a
reasonable simple test of reliability, and that was that.

The only argument for the technical folks is
then that the differences probably don't really exist and it is
all just a perceptual problem in the minds of the audiophile
(i.e., "you're crazy") which insults the audiophiles.

Not at all. Placebo effects aren't a perceptual problem when properly
managed, they are just one aspect of how human perception works. People who
are distracted by placebo effects aren't crazy, they are just poorly
informed.

The audiophile argues that the techno guys sit out there without ever
having heard what the audio guys have experienced and are
"understanding" things using simplistic applications of BASIC
theory in an area that is inherently complicated.

I can experience placebo effects and be distracted by them whenever I want
to. I don't need any high end snake oil merchants to help me. All I have to
do is listen to two things that I think should sound different, but don't.

Stalemate. It's no wonder there are continuous wars on these subjects.

The war was settled, everybody won. Knowing that placebo effects and
learning how to manage them without all the emotional baggage is the key.

It's too bad because as an engineer, I would love to understand
why changing a cord on a given high-end system can make a
difference where my own understanding of the theory says it
probably shouldn't.

First, understand how human perception works.

As an audiophile, I've heard these changes
that many times have been far too distinct (and have run contrary
to what I desired at that time) for me to accept an explanation
that it was "all in my head", especially by some tech who may
have never even sat down in front of such a system, let alone
have hours of listening and familiarity experience with them.

Jeff, this sort of drivel-talk, and all the self-pity that preceded it,
just shows that you need to understand how human perception works.

Audiophiles need to realize that many subtle differences may be
only perceptual, and real differences (even subtle ones) must be
based on some principle that should be measurable in some way.

Actually, all that audiophiles need to admit is that the world isn't always
exactly as they perceive it. They need to realize that there are such things
as audible illusions. They need to understand that the eye is connected to
the brain, and the brain as the most powerful organ in the body can
subordinate the ear.

Technophobs need to realize that although there may be a lot of
snake oil in the audio industry, many differences heard between
high end system components are NOT just perceptual and they need
to have personal experience listening to such comparisons so that
ultimately, we can have more technical people that understand
(and can measure) the physical properties that are contributing
to the audible differences.

Trouble is, perceptions of audible differences in areas where "basic
theory" says it shouldn't be happening, are usually illusions.

This thread is a good example. The basic problem was a ground loop, which
has a well-known audible consequence. Nevertheless, our naive audiophile
inflated this problem to the degree where he wrote:

"The timing of the
songs change also from cable to cable, the beat changes, with the
audioquest some songs slow down, others fasten up. This was one of the
contributing reasons why I was able to discern with 100 certainty
everytime which cable was being used in the blind tests. My freind
changed the cables 7 times and left the audioquests where they were 3
times. He didn't say anything just started the sample songs with my
que. All other variables were the same (volume, speaker placement, etc).
I was able differentiate which cords were being used each time without
*any* hesitation."

Trust me, I can hear the difference between a good solid ground loop and no
ground loop without any hesitation, as well. I don't even need any high end
audio components be present in the system when I accomplish this feat of
auditory legerdemain.

;-)

Engineering types should always consider one of my favorite
quotes. I believe it was Einstein who said something like "Every
problem should be reduced to its simplest form, but NOT simpler".

Agreed, and other the simplest form of the alleged problem is that as
perceived, its largely the creation of the naive listener.

Don't oversimplify an inherently complex problem, you will tend
to make mistakes.

The human brain is the most powerful organ in the body. In these matters of
audiophilia and cable magic, further searching is unnecessary.

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:41:14 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
wrote:

I respectfully disagree. The longer the time between tests with a
100% match rate INCREASES the reliability. You want the high
success rate with as much handicap added as possible. You add the
blindfold as a handicap. You increase the time between tests as a
handicap. For example, if you only sat down for 2 minutes each
day and listened to the system not knowing which item was being
used and could still identify what was being used 100% of the
time, this would be a good indication that there was in fact a
difference and it could be easily heard IMHO.

You have misunderstood the function of double blind testing. A
properly run double blind test is set up to make hearing a difference
as *easy* as possible. If that means rapid switching, then so be it.
If you deliberately introduce impediments like delays, then you can't
be sure if a null result is real, or due to interfering factors. Your
reference to a blindfold above is *not* the same handicap as
increasing the time between tests.

All you are trying to prevent in a double blind test is sighted bias,
either from the subject or the proctor.


Thanks for the comments Don. I looked at my text again and can
see where it didn't really say what I meant to convey. It implies
that adding handicap increases reliability which, as you've
pointed out, is totally wrong. A good test is intended to be as
sensitive as possible so that regardless of how subtle a
difference is, if it is a real difference at all, the
repeatability of the results will continue to be there.

I guess that the issue I was trying to convey is that some actual
differences are so blatant (e.g., my previous extreme speaker
compare analogy) that it really doesn't take a double-blind test
with all the controls to determine which is better. If the
repeatability of the test is there then that can be enough
"practically" for a normal, non-phsychotic individual :-)

All differences exist on a scale of extremely small (where things
like double-blind are essential) to massive (i.e., comparing two
power cords, one good one and one with an open hot connection).
What I frequently see happening is when someone presents an
experience where a difference was experienced as "significant"
for a traditional "magic" item (e.g., boutique power cord), it
seems to be automatically presumed that since such a difference
shouldn't exist, it must be very tiny and therfore anything less
than a double blind test is inadequate.

An example: I had a friend who complained of a significant noise
on his home theather system. I replace the power cord on his amp
with a different one I had and the obnoxious "noise" went away.
He was thrilled and wanted to buy the cable from me but I needed
to keep it for testing. You see, my cable had the wire removed
from the gnd plug. He had a ground loop going through his TV
cable that his amp was sensitive to. Once we got the proper fix
(a Jensen ground isolation transformer for his coax), I put his
original cable back.

The point was that anyone actually present at the time could see
without fancy comparisons that one cable "worked" much better
than the other in the system. If my friend (who didn't understand
ground loops) were to have posted to this group that he had
discovered changing power cords on his amp with a different one
given to him by a friend had made a "significant" difference to
the noise he had on his system, and then asked "why did this
happen", he likely would have been chewed up very much like the
OP on these threads who's original post was similar except it had
the high-end power cord smell of snake oil. Although the OP's
problem wasn't the power cord per-se, changing it to something
different had produced a change, i.e. reveled a weakness in the
system that he corrected by cleaning up his power and ground
system. Instead of getting what he wanted (info on why the change
occured) he got lectured on how he didn't do his testing right
because it would seem that no one believe that here really heard something.

Anyway, I appreciate the courteous correction to my poorly worded
post. I would really like to see more folks taking posts here (at
least initially) at face value though, and then explore from there.

- Jeff

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:25:57 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:41:14 GMT, Jeff Wiseman
wrote:

I respectfully disagree. The longer the time between tests with a
100% match rate INCREASES the reliability. You want the high
success rate with as much handicap added as possible. You add the
blindfold as a handicap. You increase the time between tests as a
handicap. For example, if you only sat down for 2 minutes each
day and listened to the system not knowing which item was being
used and could still identify what was being used 100% of the
time, this would be a good indication that there was in fact a
difference and it could be easily heard IMHO.

You have misunderstood the function of double blind testing. A
properly run double blind test is set up to make hearing a difference
as *easy* as possible. If that means rapid switching, then so be it.
If you deliberately introduce impediments like delays, then you can't
be sure if a null result is real, or due to interfering factors. Your
reference to a blindfold above is *not* the same handicap as
increasing the time between tests.

All you are trying to prevent in a double blind test is sighted bias,
either from the subject or the proctor.


Thanks for the comments Don. I looked at my text again and can
see where it didn't really say what I meant to convey. It implies
that adding handicap increases reliability which, as you've
pointed out, is totally wrong. A good test is intended to be as
sensitive as possible so that regardless of how subtle a
difference is, if it is a real difference at all, the
repeatability of the results will continue to be there.

I guess that the issue I was trying to convey is that some actual
differences are so blatant (e.g., my previous extreme speaker
compare analogy) that it really doesn't take a double-blind test
with all the controls to determine which is better. If the
repeatability of the test is there then that can be enough
"practically" for a normal, non-phsychotic individual :-)

All differences exist on a scale of extremely small (where things
like double-blind are essential) to massive (i.e., comparing two
power cords, one good one and one with an open hot connection).
What I frequently see happening is when someone presents an
experience where a difference was experienced as "significant"
for a traditional "magic" item (e.g., boutique power cord), it
seems to be automatically presumed that since such a difference
shouldn't exist, it must be very tiny and therfore anything less
than a double blind test is inadequate.

An example: I had a friend who complained of a significant noise
on his home theather system. I replace the power cord on his amp
with a different one I had and the obnoxious "noise" went away.
He was thrilled and wanted to buy the cable from me but I needed
to keep it for testing. You see, my cable had the wire removed
from the gnd plug. He had a ground loop going through his TV
cable that his amp was sensitive to. Once we got the proper fix
(a Jensen ground isolation transformer for his coax), I put his
original cable back.

Of course extraneous noises are an area where you really don't need
any kind of test involving listening to music. You turn the music off,
turn the volume up and try to get rid of the hum. Nine times out of
ten in a complex setup involving a TV, a ground loop is the culprit,
and it is easily fixed.

The point was that anyone actually present at the time could see
without fancy comparisons that one cable "worked" much better
than the other in the system. If my friend (who didn't understand
ground loops) were to have posted to this group that he had
discovered changing power cords on his amp with a different one
given to him by a friend had made a "significant" difference to
the noise he had on his system, and then asked "why did this
happen", he likely would have been chewed up very much like the
OP on these threads who's original post was similar except it had
the high-end power cord smell of snake oil. Although the OP's
problem wasn't the power cord per-se, changing it to something
different had produced a change, i.e. reveled a weakness in the
system that he corrected by cleaning up his power and ground
system. Instead of getting what he wanted (info on why the change
occured) he got lectured on how he didn't do his testing right
because it would seem that no one believe that here really heard something.

I'ne never come across a piece of equipment that responded to
"cleaning up" power, other than removing the pathological case of a
ground loop. If I had such an item, it would be back down to the shop
that same day for my money back. I've designed plenty of measuring
equipment vastly more sensitive and discerning than audio, and it all
operated to spec with the dirtiest mains I could throw at it.

Anyway, I appreciate the courteous correction to my poorly worded
post. I would really like to see more folks taking posts here (at
least initially) at face value though, and then explore from there.

- Jeff


Welcome,

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


Thanks for the comments Don. I looked at my text again and can
see where it didn't really say what I meant to convey. It implies
that adding handicap increases reliability which, as you've
pointed out, is totally wrong. A good test is intended to be as
sensitive as possible so that regardless of how subtle a
difference is, if it is a real difference at all, the
repeatability of the results will continue to be there.

Of course.

I guess that the issue I was trying to convey is that some actual
differences are so blatant (e.g., my previous extreme speaker
compare analogy) that it really doesn't take a double-blind test
with all the controls to determine which is better.

Those sort of differences aren't the usual area of controversy.

However, just because the difference is obvious doesn't mean that it is
going to be easy to tell which is better. The difference many be easy to
hear, but yet there may be no consensus on which is better.

If the repeatability of the test is there then that can be enough
"practically" for a normal, non-phsychotic individual :-)

Trouble is, false perceived differences can be very compelling.

All differences exist on a scale of extremely small (where things
like double-blind are essential) to massive (i.e., comparing two
power cords, one good one and one with an open hot connection).

In this case the difference may have been almost like that open hot
connection, (i.e., an open ground connection), but yet the listener was
apparently well down the snake oil road. All it took is a friend with some
snake oil boutique cable...

What I frequently see happening is when someone presents an
experience where a difference was experienced as "significant"
for a traditional "magic" item (e.g., boutique power cord), it
seems to be automatically presumed that since such a difference
shouldn't exist, it must be very tiny and therfore anything less
than a double blind test is inadequate.

That would be a presumption on your part, Jeff. The actual presumption is
that things aren't necessarily as they seem.

An example: I had a friend who complained of a significant noise
on his home theather system. I replace the power cord on his amp
with a different one I had and the obnoxious "noise" went away.
He was thrilled and wanted to buy the cable from me but I needed
to keep it for testing. You see, my cable had the wire removed
from the gnd plug. He had a ground loop going through his TV
cable that his amp was sensitive to. Once we got the proper fix
(a Jensen ground isolation transformer for his coax), I put his
original cable back.

Case in point. However, there's nothing non-traditional about ground loops.
So this is a bad example because conventional simplistic engineering
knowlege would yield the right answer.

The point was that anyone actually present at the time could see
without fancy comparisons that one cable "worked" much better
than the other in the system.

Those sort of differences aren't the usual area of controversy.

If my friend (who didn't understand
ground loops) were to have posted to this group that he had
discovered changing power cords on his amp with a different one
given to him by a friend had made a "significant" difference to
the noise he had on his system, and then asked "why did this
happen", he likely would have been chewed up very much like the
OP on these threads who's original post was similar except it had
the high-end power cord smell of snake oil.

Blame the true culpret - the artifically imposed lack of knowlege. OTOH, had
the report been factual and to the point, we would have been presented with
the usual symptoms of a ground loop. And, odds are good that the person with
the question would have walked away with a highly useful, factual answer. It
happens all the time.

Although the OP's
problem wasn't the power cord per-se, changing it to something
different had produced a change, i.e. reveled a weakness in the
system that he corrected by cleaning up his power and ground
system.

Jeff, you've got to admit that the following is one of the most unhh,
colorful and imaginative descriptions of the effects of a ground loop we've
had on any of the audio groups in ages:

"The timing of the
songs change also from cable to cable, the beat changes, with the
audioquest some songs slow down, others fasten up. This was one of the
contributing reasons why I was able to discern with 100 certainty
everytime which cable was being used in the blind tests. My freind
changed the cables 7 times and left the audioquests where they were 3
times. He didin't say anything just started the sample songs with my
que. All other variables were the same (volume, speaker placement, etc).
I was able differentiatewhich cords were being used each time without
*any* hesitation."


Instead of getting what he wanted (info on why the change
occured) he got lectured on how he didn't do his testing right
because it would seem that no one believe that here really heard
something.

The problem was how he articulated his problem. It was a very colorful and
imaginative piece of prose, was it not?

Anyway, I appreciate the courteous correction to my poorly worded
post. I would really like to see more folks taking posts here (at
least initially) at face value though, and then explore from there.

Things work a lot better when people don't try to sound like one of the
flakier writers in Stereophile.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


I've never come across a piece of equipment that responded to
"cleaning up" power, other than removing the pathological case of a
ground loop.

Agreed, and I've probably seen more audio gear than a lot of folks.

If I had such an item, it would be back down to the shop
that same day for my money back.

A piece of equipment that responds to "cleaning up" the power is a strong
symptom of a substandard design.

For example given how much musican's hardware is badly designed, having
"Balanced Power" available in the studios is not necessarily a concession to
snake oil, its a concession to the realities of that marketplace.

The high end has a long track record of having overly-enthusiastic revewers
foisting equipment with interface defects as having higher-than-average
resolution. DACs and speakers are two equipment categories where this sort
of thing has shown up the most often and the most pathologically.

I've designed plenty of measuring
equipment vastly more sensitive and discerning than audio, and it all
operated to spec with the dirtiest mains I could throw at it.

That's how its supposed to be! Measurement gear is supposed to be highly
responsive to the signal at the input terminals not the power cord.

Fella wrote:

Reading the words "wow % flutter" on CD I know some of you out there
will be very very angry indeed and deem me a troll again, but I just
wanted to perhaps say my say on this point (as I see some smart
ass(hole) replies out there asking "what kind of a power cord I need to
use to make a song %50 slower" gobbledygook) and clarify it for those
who *might* be inclined to treat it as some communique to understand and
not something to go all haywire and VERY VERY ANGRY about.

Oh honey, STOP IT!!! I'm not angry at all! Really, you should try being a
comedian. But do please tell me what power cord can slow down these poor
hounddog banjo songs. I've got a gig coming up at Earl's Fish Market and
really need to get the ol' notes down. You really should consider applying
for a patent on this technique 'cuz it's so SIMPLE!!!

Arny Krueger wrote:

test comparison discussion deleted


Don Pearce also corrected me on my poor wording in my last post.
Thanks Arny for the feedback.


But that's irrelevant to the problem at hand. The discussion at hand is
about power cords, and it is well known that if you do a proper listening
test, power cords comparisions yield negative results.


This may be be true if you are only dealing with power delivery
issues. If you have significant ground loop or RF pickup or
radiation issues is a system, power cords can make a difference,
although it's unfortunate that the simple addition of a
telescoping shield and/or ferrite rings seem to add $2000 to the
price of a cord for those who can't make their own :-(


The issue of hospitality on this group unfortunately appears to
be a regular issue here

That might be because some people have an odd idea of hospitality. They
equate hospitality with going out of your way to convince someone of a false
fact.


I guess the real issue I meant was "hostility". "Hospitality" was
intended to be a little more friendly :-)


:-S however, his choice to come here with
the question would make sense. He has experienced a significant
effect on his system when he changes out a cord.

Wrong. He did a bogus listening test and is no doubt deceiving himself as a
result.


Why would it be "bogus"? He did a practical (though simple)
listening test that just wasn't the absolute, ultimate,
end-all-to-beat-all, super control test type that is the only one
accepted by comparison testing purists. Why are you so sure ("no
doubt") that he is deceiving himself to the results? Is it
because he was comparing power cords and "it is well known
that...power cord comparisions yield negative results"? What if
the results were so distinct and obvious that you don't need an
ultra sensitive test to determine the differences in a practical
fashion? It sounds as though you have presumed that because it
involved power cords, there could be no difference and therefor
it's all in the guy's head? Do you absolutely have to have a
double-blind test to determine if one cord were good and the
second had a opened hot connection and was therefore broken?

When significant ground loop and RF problems exist, adding
shielding and RF blocks to a power cord can make significant and
obvious differences that can be immediately detected by anyone present.


The effect is
stiking enough to him, and so far has been 100% repeatable under
a simple blind test for him where he seems to recognize that
there must be a physical reason for it.

But, as a rule, single blind tests aren't blind tests at all. They have a
built-in defect.


True, but double-blind also has a built in defect-its called the
listener. The problem is we don't have test equipment to measure
the signals in a way that tells us as much as pair of subjective
ears can, but we won't go into that :-)


Since he himself was
skeptical to start with, he has come to a tech group where other
skeptics would exist in the hopes of finding some physical clues
as to why this "thing" really happens.

The most likely explanation has been given. He did not do a proper listening
test.


The most likely explanation was that the difference did exist and
it was significant enough to allow him to hear it without double
blind testing. Since the cord that the OP originally used to
improve the system had RF blocking on it, it lead to a possible
conclusion of ground loop/power problems which he has now
confirmed (i.e., the new cord isn't necessary when the power
ground problems are fixed).

Or of course he could just be imagining it all...but I doubt it.


Unfortunately, many critics who have never experienced some of
these "effects" and have chosen not to believe that they can
exist in any way, shape, or form, can only surmise that it is all
a phsychologic preconception in the head of the listener--even
when that listener was a skeptic himself to start with!

One major reason why many critics have not heard these effects is that they
did proper listening tests. Remember, the OP was talking about power cords,
not comparing transistor radio speakers to proper high fidelity speakers.


The OP was talking about cords with and without RF blocking in a
system that had questionable power service. Again, my point is
that this can be a significant issue.


I've done so-called listening tests that produced positive outcomes that
disagreed with established audio theories as I understood them at the time.
Then I realized that the listening test in question was not a proper
listening test. When I repeated the exprience under proper, relevant test
conditions the outcome changed dramatically. When I improved my
understanding of audio theory by independent means, the theory and my
observations agreed.


That is why I continue to read these groups...to learn from the
experience of folks like yourself and where these things agree.


I have yet to see a skeptic who hasn't had a major
change in attitude when sat down in front of a significantly high
resolving and well balanced audio system and given the
opportunity to experience comparing different components that
"shouldn't" affect the sound.

You've obviously been dealing with the wrong people.


I don't understand how can you feel comfortable generalizing in
such a broad sense. These are many of the most well educated
engineering and scientific type folks that I know and respect.
You don't know these people. Are you implying that I should only
deal with folks like you?


Also, there is a lot of "snake-oil" components in the industry
and many charlitans. This ticks off a lot of people
understandibly and I expect that is what may drive some of the
hostility when certain "magic" components are discussed. But when
a person with an $80K system decides to add a $3K power cord,
just because someone thinks that it is a total extravegance and
waste of money does NOT mean that cord won't enhance or change
the sound of that system in a desirable way.

Now that's true. What is relevant is the fact that power cords are rarely a
source of audible problems in audio systems.


Yes yes yes! All the more reason to disbelieve that changing
cords could produce a difference. But again, although power cords
are designed for power transfer, they can be unwitting components
for the infamous ground loop and other RF porblems depending on
other components and layouts in the system. Depending on the
non-power related issues, they can make an issue.

In general, my experience has always been that any improvement
due to power cord changes were more releated to shielding and RF
blocking than power transfer.


Jeff, you've already admitted to your lack of experience to high end systems
doing proper listening tests, so your experience is irrelevant to a
discussion of sound quality.


So you're telling me that because I don't perform proper double
blind testing on every single thing I listen to, My experience
and appreciation of high quality sound is inadaquate for me to
contribute anything truely useful in discussions on improving
sound quality in a system? I disagree. Sharing my experience can
be just as relevant as yours.

On the other hand, in spite of the fact that you appear to
specifically understand some testing principles and concepts much
better than I, your "I'm the expert and your experience is
irrelevant" attitude is destructive to any discussion of sound
quality. I'm not sure if your agenda is to help others, support
the group, or just show off, but it would be really great if you
could share your knowledge in a less confrontational fashion.
Your knowledge is far too valuable to be presented in a way that
folks who need to learn it will just turn it off because of the
manner in which it is presented. Give the rest of us a chance.

- Jeff

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:51:24 +0300, Fella wrote:

. For instance, the same friend that (now
unsuccesfully) tried to sell me the power cables has interconnects,
ve-ery expensive ones, rca to rca, that have *direction* pointed out on
them, as in arrows along the body of the cables, the signal should
travel *from* the source *to* the amp in that spec'd direction. Would
this make any sense?

I'm informed that this could be to do with shielding connected to
ground at one end only. Under certain circumstances this makes a
subtle difference.

Jeff Wiseman wrote:


Stalemate. It's no wonder there are continuous wars on these subjects.

It's too bad because as an engineer, I would love to understand
why changing a cord on a given high-end system can make a
difference where my own understanding of the theory says it
probably shouldn't. As an audiophile, I've heard these changes
that many times have been far too distinct (and have run contrary
to what I desired at that time) for me to accept an explanation
that it was "all in my head", especially by some tech who may
have never even sat down in front of such a system, let alone
have hours of listening and familiarity experience with them.

Well, you should reconsider.

What I would love to see, first and foremost, is evidence
from a properly controlled comparison, that such an audible
difference exists. 'Distinct' differences can and have turned
out to be illusory. People can convince themselves, easily,
that 'distinct' difference exist when the same component
is presented twice but the listener thinks it's two different
components.

Any experience with a mistaken or 'phantom' switching episode,
such as I've described -- and I have experiences such accidents ,
where I *thought* I'd changed something , but in fact didn't --
should give the listener pause regarding claims of distinct
difference. Where none is reasonably expected from physical
principles, but one is perceived, the listener needs to rule
out psychological effects. That's inescapably true.

Have you never mistakenly thought something sounded
different, when in fact nothign had changed?


Audiophiles need to realize that many subtle differences may be
only perceptual, and real differences (even subtle ones) must be
based on some principle that should be measureable in some way.
Technophobs need to realize that although there may be a lot of
snake oil in the audio industry, many differences heard between
high end system components are NOT just perceptual and they need
to have personal experience listening to such comparisons so that
ultimately, we can have more technical people that understand
(and can measure) the physical properties that are contributing
to the audible differences.

Wrong. The claimant of the difference needs to provide *better
reasons* why the claim is true. That's the scientific method.

Engineering types should always consider one of my favorite
quotes. I believe it was Einstien who said something like "Every
problem should be reduced to its simplest form, but NOT simpler".
Don't oversimplify an inherently complex problem, you will tend
to make mistakes.

Indeed. Positing new physical properties for devices that *should*
sound the same, is exactly that sort of spurious complication.
We have a simple explanation for why stuff *sounds* different,
and it's based in psychology.


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


This is also (unfortunately) true. I suppose it could be due in
part to the fact that many of those experienced in listening to
many high resolution systems do not have the technical background
to explain why they hear differences in areas where "basic
theory" says it shouldn't be happening. For that reason, they
just avoid the question--understandable but unfortunate.

The results of close examination of situations where differences are heard
"where basic theory says it shouldn't be happening", is that they aren't
hearing differences, they just think they are.

On the other hand, the folks who have the technical background to
actually explain some of these differences won't even take the
opportunity to listen to some comparisons of components (on
systems that are actually capable of revealing differences)
simply because they have already convinced themselves that those
differences can't (and therefore don't) exist.

How many times does one need to waste time with situations where differences
are heard "where basic theory says it shouldn't be happening", and it turns
out to be that they aren't hearing differences?

Or to put it another way:
If someone has a result that suggests the basic theory is wrong or incomplete,
it is incumbent upon *them* to make a case for it. It is not incumbent
upon the community to set aside all previous results in the interests of
'open mindedness'. Previous models should be set aside when they are demonstrated
to be inaccurate. In audio, if the case rests on sighted comparison results *alone*,
then it is a weak case.

That the existing model *could* be wrong is inherent in it being
a scientific model. There should be no need to belabor that point.
It does not make the new model *any more likely to be true* in and of
itself. It does not make all models equally likely.

How many times does all *this* have to be explained?


The only argument for the technical folks is
then that the differences probably don't really exist and it is
all just a perceptual problem in the minds of the audiophile
(i.e., "you're crazy") which insults the audiophiles.

Not at all. Placebo effects aren't a perceptual problem when properly
managed, they are just one aspect of how human perception works. People who
are distracted by placebo effects aren't crazy, they are just poorly
informed.

And they are perfectly normal, rather than crazy. Placebo effects are
a fact of psychological (not to mention scientific) life.



--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Fella wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


I think it would probably better...if you steered clear of ec.audio.tech.


Wow! We agree on something.


This is
clearly a forum in which you are way out of your depth,

Well obviously I am not an electrical engineer and that was the *reason*
in the first place why I came to ask these questions. Being a cross
bunch of insincere never-will-be's *of course* my sincerity was
questioned and agnry retaliations, ridicule, whatever was spewn forth.

In matters of "self esteem" I suggest that you guys take a long hard
look in the mirror before tending to your ribs, since I somehow sense an
unhealthy amount of "envy" (more or less) behind the ridicule and anger
that my "trolling" provoked.


Have you *always* been this petulant when given medicine for your own
good?


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Murray Peterson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote in
:

I've always found that trying to win an argument by threatening the
other party is a sure winner. I'm sure the spectators to this thread
are nodding their heads sagely and saying, "Yup, Fella is clearly
right here - he wants to get violent".

He lost any credibility long before that, so sage nodding of heads isn't
even needed. When the usual "audiophile arguments" start coming up, I quit
listening; you know the ones -- "we don't know everything", "we don't
listen", "our system isn't good enough", etc.

They should just wander over to the RAHE group.

Why? Those arguments won't be tolerated any better there.

Somewhat associated question -- can anyone even stand to stay in an audio
"boutique" store for more than a few minutes any more? I find myself
unable to stand the rhetoric for more than a few minutes, especially when
everyone there starts nodding their heads in agreement with some patently
ridiculous statment.


I go to check out the latest in comfy listening chairs ;


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

test comparison discussion deleted


Don Pearce also corrected me on my poor wording in my last post.
Thanks Arny for the feedback.


But that's irrelevant to the problem at hand. The discussion at hand
is about power cords, and it is well known that if you do a proper
listening test, power cords comparisions yield negative results.

This may be be true if you are only dealing with power delivery
issues. If you have significant ground loop or RF pickup or
radiation issues is a system, power cords can make a difference,
although it's unfortunate that the simple addition of a
telescoping shield and/or ferrite rings seem to add $2000 to the
price of a cord for those who can't make their own :-(

Not so. A power cord can't properly solve a ground loop problem. If a power
cord provides a conduit for nominal amounts of RF to enter a piece of
equipment, that is the fault of the designer of the piece of equipment. If
people operate audio equipment in an environment where RF levels exceed
norms for audio equipment then that is their problem. In no case can we
properly find a reliable benefit to audiophiles at large from an exotic
power cord.

The issue of hospitality on this group unfortunately appears to
be a regular issue here

That might be because some people have an odd idea of hospitality.
They equate hospitality with going out of your way to convince
someone of a false fact.

I guess the real issue I meant was "hostility". "Hospitality" was
intended to be a little more friendly :-)

:-S however, his choice to come here with
the question would make sense. He has experienced a significant
effect on his system when he changes out a cord.

Wrong. He did a bogus listening test and is no doubt deceiving
himself as a result.

Why would it be "bogus"?

Single blind listening tests are well known to have an inherent flaw. They
don't properly control relevant variables that can and should be controlled.

He did a practical (though simple)
listening test that just wasn't the absolute, ultimate,
end-all-to-beat-all, super control test type that is the only one
accepted by comparison testing purists.

It's not a matter of test purism. It's a matter of doing a test that
adequately controls relevant variables.

Why are you so sure ("no
doubt") that he is deceiving himself to the results?

The grotesque way the problem was misidentified, for one.

Is it because he was comparing power cords and "it is well known
that...power cord comparisions yield negative results"?

It doesn't help.

What if
the results were so distinct and obvious that you don't need an
ultra sensitive test to determine the differences in a practical
fashion?

Blind tests aren't really about ultra-sensitivity, even though they often
provide that benefit. The most important things about any test are
controlling relevant variables and proper identification of the symptoms.
His tests failed on both counts.

It sounds as though you have presumed that because it
involved power cords, there could be no difference and therefor
it's all in the guy's head?

There can be differences due to power cords, but as your example just below
shows, they are quite a different thing than what the OP claimed. More
specfically he claimed and I quote:

""The timing of the
songs change also from cable to cable, the beat changes, with the
audioquest some songs slow down, others fasten up. This was one of the
contributing reasons why I was able to discern with 100 certainty
everytime which cable was being used in the blind tests. My freind
changed the cables 7 times and left the audioquests where they were 3
times. He didn't say anything just started the sample songs with my
que. All other variables were the same (volume, speaker placement, etc).
I was able differentiate which cords were being used each time without
*any* hesitation."

Do you absolutely have to have a
double-blind test to determine if one cord were good and the
second had a opened hot connection and was therefore broken?

Irrelevant since such a failure would not lead to what the OP reported.

When significant ground loop and RF problems exist, adding
shielding and RF blocks to a power cord can make significant and
obvious differences that can be immediately detected by anyone
present.

Also irrelevant since such a failure would not lead to what the OP reported.

The effect is
stiking enough to him, and so far has been 100% repeatable under
a simple blind test for him where he seems to recognize that
there must be a physical reason for it.

But, as a rule, single blind tests aren't blind tests at all. They
have a built-in defect.

True, but double-blind also has a built in defect-its called the
listener.

Not necessarily. DBT methodologies like ABX and ABC/hr are interactive
procedures that help the listener improve his own performance.

The problem is we don't have test equipment to measure
the signals in a way that tells us as much as pair of subjective
ears can, but we won't go into that :-)

...especially since its a false claim.

Since he himself was
skeptical to start with, he has come to a tech group where other
skeptics would exist in the hopes of finding some physical clues
as to why this "thing" really happens.

The most likely explanation has been given. He did not do a proper
listening test.

The most likely explanation was that the difference did exist and
it was significant enough to allow him to hear it without double
blind testing.

The difference was grotesquely misidentified and misdiagnosed. Had the
misidentification and misdiagnosis not been challenged, the OP would have
ended up with mistaken beliefs and a fancy power cord he didn't need.

Since the cord that the OP originally used to
improve the system had RF blocking on it, it lead to a possible
conclusion of ground loop/power problems which he has now
confirmed (i.e., the new cord isn't necessary when the power
ground problems are fixed).

The Audioquest's alleged RF blocking was red herring. Ay effects that it
may have had on the ground loop (breaking the existing power cord's safety
ground connection) probably created a safety hazard.

Or of course he could just be imagining it all...but I doubt it.

It's clear to me that a goodly portion of his initial reporting was
imaginary. Particularly: ""The timing of the songs change also from cable to
cable, the beat changes, with the audioquest some songs slow down, others
fasten up."

Unfortunately, many critics who have never experienced some of
these "effects" and have chosen not to believe that they can
exist in any way, shape, or form, can only surmise that it is all
a psychologic preconception in the head of the listener--even
when that listener was a skeptic himself to start with!

One major reason why many critics have not heard these effects is
that they did proper listening tests. Remember, the OP was talking
about power cords, not comparing transistor radio speakers to proper
high fidelity speakers.

The OP was talking about cords with and without RF blocking in a
system that had questionable power service. Again, my point is
that this can be a significant issue.

Perhaps, but this thread has zero evidence that supports that claim. It does
provide an example of how a gratuious feature can confuse things.

I've done so-called listening tests that produced positive outcomes
that disagreed with established audio theories as I understood them
at the time. Then I realized that the listening test in question was
not a proper listening test. When I repeated the exprience under
proper, relevant test conditions the outcome changed dramatically.
When I improved my understanding of audio theory by independent
means, the theory and my observations agreed.

That is why I continue to read these groups...to learn from the
experience of folks like yourself and where these things agree.

If you really understand what's going down, they always agree.

I have yet to see a skeptic who hasn't had a major
change in attitude when sat down in front of a significantly high
resolving and well balanced audio system and given the
opportunity to experience comparing different components that
"shouldn't" affect the sound.

You've obviously been dealing with the wrong people.

I don't understand how can you feel comfortable generalizing in
such a broad sense.

Given the overly broad generalization I'm responding to...

IME the world is full of systems that have more than enough resolving power
and good enough balance so that they can be used to discern differences that
actually affect the sound. The position and behavior of the typical golden
ear who is defending one of his chershed but totally unreliable beliefs is
pretty predictable.

First the GE claims that the difference is so clearly audible that double
blind tests aren't required.

When you say that people can't hear it in DBTs, he attacks the people and
the systems that don't behave in accordance with his beliefs. He often
deifies some more ideal system that can resolve the difference he believes
exists.

When you demonstrate the supposedly clearly audible difference on the
diefied system, and he still can't hear the difference reliably, he then
attacks the DBT test procedures.

I've been watching this sequence of events repeat themselves for over 20
years.


These are many of the most well educated
engineering and scientific type folks that I know and respect.
You don't know these people. Are you implying that I should only
deal with folks like you?

I'm saying you should do proper listening tests.

Also, there is a lot of "snake-oil" components in the industry
and many charlitans. This ticks off a lot of people
understandibly and I expect that is what may drive some of the
hostility when certain "magic" components are discussed. But when
a person with an $80K system decides to add a $3K power cord,
just because someone thinks that it is a total extravegance and
waste of money does NOT mean that cord won't enhance or change
the sound of that system in a desirable way.

Now that's true. What is relevant is the fact that power cords are
rarely a source of audible problems in audio systems.

Yes yes yes! All the more reason to disbelieve that changing
cords could produce a difference. But again, although power cords
are designed for power transfer, they can be unwitting components
for the infamous ground loop and other RF porblems depending on
other components and layouts in the system. Depending on the
non-power related issues, they can make an issue.

If equipment doesn't work in standard environments with the power cord that
it is suppled with, its an indictment of the guy who engineered the package.
It's also an indictment that rarely if ever sticks in a proper listening
test.

In general, my experience has always been that any improvement
due to power cord changes were more releated to shielding and RF
blocking than power transfer.

That would reflect badly on the design of the equipment. I don't doubt that
there is some POS gear out there, even highly expensive
top-rated-by-Stereophile equipment that is in reality a POS.

Jeff, you've already admitted to your lack of experience to high end
systems doing proper listening tests, so your experience is
irrelevant to a discussion of sound quality.

So you're telling me that because I don't perform proper double
blind testing on every single thing I listen to, My experience
and appreciation of high quality sound is inadaquate for me to
contribute anything truely useful in discussions on improving
sound quality in a system? I disagree. Sharing my experience can
be just as relevant as yours.

Jeff, thanks for admitting that you don't do enough DBTs to have much of
anything interesting to talk about.

On the other hand, in spite of the fact that you appear to
specifically understand some testing principles and concepts much
better than I, your "I'm the expert and your experience is
irrelevant" attitude is destructive to any discussion of sound
quality.

So far, I haven't seen any constructive discussion of sound quality to
destroy.

I'm not sure if your agenda is to help others, support
the group, or just show off, but it would be really great if you
could share your knowledge in a less confrontational fashion.

My only agenda is finding out the relevant facts.

Your knowledge is far too valuable to be presented in a way that
folks who need to learn it will just turn it off because of the
manner in which it is presented. Give the rest of us a chance.

I give everybody who wants it, all of the chance they need - www.pcabx.com .

Fella wrote in message . ..
Dick Pierce wrote:
Fella wrote in message . ..

As curious as it may seem, the problem reappears. The timing of the
songs change also from cable to cable, the beat changes, with the
audioquest some songs slow down, others fasten up. This was one of the
contributing reasons why I was able to discern with 100 certainty
everytime which cable was being used in the blind tests.
Really?

We look forward to your timing measurements. What marvelous times we
live in when just a power cable can change how fast something plays!

Before bidding a fond farewell to you cross bunch of know-it-all
electrical prodigy einstein wannabees (whatever) this "beat" and
"timing" issue which you obvioulsy gladly misunderstood, and stretched
to the opposite end with stopwatches, etc, is ... or *was* about wow &
flutter per se (I guess) and not about actual duration of any of the
songs on CD. The "timing" the inner timing, of the songs became right,
(werre not right) as it were.

Okay, you have clarified what you mean then, thanks. Wowo and flutter
is certainly a more precise definition of what you observed and,
quite fortunately, we have the means at hand to determine this to
a rather high degree of accuracy. Indeed, still having these cables
in hand, I was also able to perform very high resolution FM analysis
(since, in fact, wow and flutter is precisely frequency modulation
constained over a fairly naroow bandwidth) and see exactly the effects
of differences in power cords on the wow and flutter performance
of CD players.

And, once again, having no intention of upstaging your findings, I
will withhold my measurements and let you post yours. Again, we await
your wow and flutter findings.

One quick question though. When I plugged the various 1 meter length
power cables into the wall, it suddenly struck me that the 1 meter
I plugged in was a fairly minor portion of the 10 meters between the
CD player and the circuit breaker panel. Surely, when I changed that
1 meter portion, it did not change the remaining 10 meters.

And then, I thought, beyond that 1 meter power cord and beyond the
10 meters to the breaker box lies another 100 meters to the street,
then beyond that are a few tens of thousands of meters to the power
station and, ...

Oh, should you be interested, the methodology I used for determining
the wow and flutter, along with a broader range of time domain
variations, was by high-resolution spectral analysis. In this particular
case, I used 1 MSample FFTs which, at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz,
results in the ability to frequency resolution of better than 0.045 Hz.
I maasured the same passages of music with different power cords and
was then able to compare them line for line with each other and, in
essence, derive a difference spectrum. The results, I should say, are
pretty unambiguous.

But, ceartainly, you first.

By the way, might you also consider posting what model CD player you
used? I am curious to discover what CD player out there has such a
horribly incompetently designed power supply that a mere change in power
cords makes such a dramatic difference in the performance of the player.
I do hope the dealer you bought it from will correct this egregious
and, I should say negligent mistake of selling such obviously defective
goods.

Again, we look forward to your posting of actual data supporting
your observations.

Oh, and one more thing: that stuff that some obvious sophmoric
poster in this thread about stuff like "propeller head" and
"wannabes," well, if you see him, you might want to warn his parents
that he's using their computer without their permission, and he's
liable to get his little smart ass toasted by people who were already
substantial players in the business when he was still soiling his
pants assuming he has stopped that.

Thanks again for your precise, erudite, technically well-formed and
fact-supported posts. It's a pleasure, as always.





Reading the words "wow % flutter" on CD I know some of you out there
will be very very angry indeed and deem me a troll again, but I just
wanted to perhaps say my say on this point (as I see some smart
ass(hole) replies out there asking "what kind of a power cord I need to
use to make a song %50 slower" gobbledygook) and clarify it for those
who *might* be inclined to treat it as some communique to understand and
not something to go all haywire and VERY VERY ANGRY about.

In anycase, I am happy to report that a heavy-duty, well shielded and
*grounded* extension cord strecthed in from a grounded outlet in kitchen
has made all the difference. I know the audiophile cord was not
mysteriously adding grounding to the equation but it no longer has an
audible effect on the system.

And yes, the system sounds sweet, it sounds good, it sounds detailed,
and precise and involving and musical. So there.

PS: I will try so that this is my last message here but any intentional
provocations, misrepresentations, below-the-belt demogogy might get me
reactional enough to trigger a response.

I'd much rather end this thread here and thank those who helped out on
the issue.

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Murray Peterson wrote:
[snip]
They should just wander over to the RAHE group.

Why? Those arguments won't be tolerated any better there.

No, but they seem to be more of the common fare in that group.

Fella wrote:

Thanks Jeff. Like I said, the extension is from a gnd outlet in the
kitchen. Though I did not open it up to see for myself, it does have the
gnd contacts. Coupled with the galvanic separator, the audioquest cables
have no discernable effect anymore. Compared with the preposterous and
silly price of the audioquest cables, I got away pretty cheaply, which
was nice.

Though I am going to try out those "ferrite rings" thingies also, as
soon as I figure out where to go to buy the such.


Last I looked a year or so ago, Radio Shack online had them.
However, since fixing the power/gnd feed for your system has
eliminated audible difference of putting a power cord with
ferrites into your system, adding ferrites into your system after
the power/gnd fix is probably not necessary (I.e, it'll have the
same effect as adding the Audioquest cable to your system now--nothing!).

Save your money on ferrites and think about adding a better
service with proper ground from your service entrance to where
your equipment is. It will likely not only solve your original
problem, but it will increase the safety factor of your wiring as
well now that you will have grounded outlets there. Furthermore,
it can reduce any potential problems due to kitchen appliances
(e.g., refrigerator compressor) turning on and off.

- Jeff

Arny Krueger wrote:

stuff deleted
An example: I had a friend who complained of a significant noise
on his home theather system. I replace the power cord on his amp
with a different one I had and the obnoxious "noise" went away.
He was thrilled and wanted to buy the cable from me but I needed
to keep it for testing. You see, my cable had the wire removed
from the gnd plug. He had a ground loop going through his TV
cable that his amp was sensitive to. Once we got the proper fix
(a Jensen ground isolation transformer for his coax), I put his
original cable back.

Case in point. However, there's nothing non-traditional about ground loops.
So this is a bad example because conventional simplistic engineering
knowlege would yield the right answer.


I thought that this example was good because my initial
perception of the OP's situation was that it was potentially the
same type of issue. The improvements he now appears to have
achieved by using a different power and ground source seems to
indicate that it may have in fact been something like this.


The point was that anyone actually present at the time could see
without fancy comparisons that one cable "worked" much better
than the other in the system.

Those sort of differences aren't the usual area of controversy.


But could easily explain the OP's original circumstance.


Although the OP's
problem wasn't the power cord per-se, changing it to something
different had produced a change, i.e. reveled a weakness in the
system that he corrected by cleaning up his power and ground
system.

Jeff, you've got to admit that the following is one of the most unhh,
colorful and imaginative descriptions of the effects of a ground loop we've
had on any of the audio groups in ages:

"The timing of the
songs change also from cable to cable, the beat changes, with the
audioquest some songs slow down, others fasten up. This was one of the
contributing reasons why I was able to discern with 100 certainty
everytime which cable was being used in the blind tests. My freind
changed the cables 7 times and left the audioquests where they were 3
times. He didin't say anything just started the sample songs with my
que. All other variables were the same (volume, speaker placement, etc).
I was able differentiatewhich cords were being used each time without
*any* hesitation."


Yea. *sigh*. This is probably what got him most of his flake :-)
I also now understand a lot more of what you have been getting at
earlier in the thread. Personally, I just saw most of what
preceeded it. I.e., introducing a power cord with ferrite clamps
seemed to make a big difference to him. My reasoning was that if
any significant difference actually existed (whether properly
tested for or not) it was likely due to noise loops that happened
to be passing along the power cord. So I suggested some things
that might confirm that.

As far as the CD player description goes, yea he probably needs
to avoid any of that hifi-talk and just describe what he though
he heard in good detail. There seem to be a lot of CD players
that don't seem to provide good shielding from digital noise (or
radiatingit for that matter) and for some reason seem to have
power supplies and other circuitry that are only marginally
stable. It seems plausible to me that passing a very strong
and/or noisy ground loop current through such a device's signal
and supply grounds might cause strange behaviors. If this was the
case, and the initial suspicion of grounding/ground loops were
true, then it might take care of itself with the power/gnd fixes
so again, I didn't worry too much about the CD descriptions in
the original post (although I did suggest swapping out the CD to
see if that helped-a fouled up power supply in the player might
have been a major source of interchassis currents)

BTW, I had a Cal-Audio CL-10 CD player (used to list for around
$1600 I think) that I used for a year or so before being forced
to sell it. I really liked the player and its sound. The guy that
bought it said that it would not track right and kept skipping on
him. Through a series of discussions I discovered that he had it
on some kind of exotic tip-toes. I told him to take it off the
tip-toes and put it directly on the shelf. He's not had any
problems with it since. As near as I can figure it, the tip-toes
may have been allowing internal transport resonances to occur
fouling up the disk read operations. In any event, a "quality" CD
player shouldn't be doing that.


Instead of getting what he wanted (info on why the change
occured) he got lectured on how he didn't do his testing right
because it would seem that no one believe that here really heard
something.

The problem was how he articulated his problem. It was a very colorful and
imaginative piece of prose, was it not?


Well, the part you pointed out certainly was :-) Perhaps I
identified a bit with that from way back in my early days of
trying to understand, find answers, and "be a part" of the
community, so it really wouldn't be fitting for me to criticize
:-)


Anyway, I appreciate the courteous correction to my poorly worded
post. I would really like to see more folks taking posts here (at
least initially) at face value though, and then explore from there.

Things work a lot better when people don't try to sound like one of the
flakier writers in Stereophile.


Yes they do. We all get excited about our hobbies though and need
to be gently reminded to stay on subject, accurately describe,
remain objective, etc., etc. :-) It really should remain fun for
as many as possible IMHO.

- Jeff

Fella wrote:

There *is* a lot of mythical and "feel'good factor" products associated
with high-end audio. But on the other hand, high end audio is pretty
much amazing in terms of the definitions, tonality, musicality one
*achieves* in ones own house, it's not just about re-producing music in
your house anymore, it is almost becoming a form of art, science, all on
its own terms.. (Damn, some propeller heads are aiming their guns now as
we speak ...


Don't be too defensive :-) most of what has been presented here
is very well founded and good information regardless of the
manner in which it has been presented. Since there are always
those who know much more and those who know much less, it's
always important to present information as clearly as possible
with as few assumptions as possible unless they are presented as
assumptions. There are some very informed folks on these groups
that you can learn a lot from but they have had to deal with many
of the same issues over and over and frequently with other, very
hard-headed individuals. Their natural reactions now to the
"snake-oil" syndrome is to squash it flat immediately which is
understandable in many ways.

When it happens, try to look at why they reacted the way they did
and you might be able to further learn how to aquire information
from these folks in a more efficient and faster way by avoiding
issues that can waste time. It bugs me too sometimes but if I
want to learn, I need to be able to communicate with these folks
in a way that shows respect for their knowledge and supports
their efforts to contribute to the group.

However, there is many religious like fervers that everyone has,
even in the engineering relms. That doesn't mean everyone is
right and you need to know how you fit in as well. For example,
there are many here that profess the importance of proper
comparison testing. Their points are about this being the only
way to properly compare things. My personal feelings are that
those thing are completely true but not necessary for many
individuals needs. If I do a simple, sighted A/B comparison where
it seems that one item sounds better than another, I HAVE to
admit to myself that there may be and are likely phsychological
factors impairing that judgement. However, if I make a purchase
based on that testing, I'm happy with my price, and I'm happy
with the product, it really doesn't matter (to me) if I was
somehow mistaking in my judgement. Of course, I have no excuse or
justification for complaining later either! :-) It really
bothers some people that I might spend a pile of money on
somthing that is only better to me because I've convinced myself
of it.

Just remember that when compring issues across the board though,
there needs to be some standards and that is what a lot of these
guys are pushing for (i.e., test standards, etc.)


But like I said, there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo still floating around too
(well IMHO, anyways). For instance, the same friend that (now
unsuccesfully) tried to sell me the power cables has interconnects,
ve-ery expensive ones, rca to rca, that have *direction* pointed out on
them, as in arrows along the body of the cables, the signal should
travel *from* the source *to* the amp in that spec'd direction. Would
this make any sense?


The term "telescoping shield" referrs to a coaxial cable design
where the shield is only connected at one end. Sometimes a coax
will have a double shield where the inner shield is connected at
both ends but the outer is connected at only one. This type of
shield arrangment can help defeat the "loop antenna" effect by
opening the leg of the antenna between components. Since in
theory the shield drains the signal away to ground, the source
end is chosen for the connection since it is typically a lower
impedance connection and away from the entrance of the next stage
of amplification. Hence a cable with a telescoping shield can be
considered "directional" and changing the direction creates a
non-optimum configuration.

The use of a telescoping shield can help in high RF environments.
Whether or not reversing the direction of the cable will make a
perceptable difference, I have no idea. I do believe IMHO that if
it did make a difference, it would likely be very subtle even on
high resolving systems. In any event, I hook 'em up in the
direction of the arrows simply because it's just as easy as doing
it backward. I doubt that the system I have could ever reveal
such a difference even if it did exist.

BTW, some cable manufacturers also maintain direction of the
cable the way it comes off of the wire spools in the cabling
machines. To me, this really seems doubtful and I personally
would need to do DBT on direction before I would be convinced.
But that is just me.


Well obviously, I do not know.


Well, you do now.

- Jeff

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:59:37 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:56:00 +0300, Fella wrote:

I am NOT going to deny what I heard and perceived so as not to "draw the
ridicule" of some propeller head quack such as yourself.

The problem is that it didn't really exist in the physical soundfield,
whatever your imagination tells you.

You were there? Another quack master of the universe propeller head out
of the bunch..

I don't need to stand on the Moon, to know that it's not made of green
cheese.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Jeff Wiseman" wrote in message


There seem to be a lot of CD players
that don't seem to provide good shielding from digital noise (or
radiatingit for that matter) and for some reason seem to have
power supplies and other circuitry that are only marginally
stable. It seems plausible to me that passing a very strong
and/or noisy ground loop current through such a device's signal
and supply grounds might cause strange behaviors. If this was the
case, and the initial suspicion of grounding/ground loops were
true, then it might take care of itself with the power/gnd fixes
so again, I didn't worry too much about the CD descriptions in
the original post (although I did suggest swapping out the CD to
see if that helped-a fouled up power supply in the player might
have been a major source of interchassis currents)

The fact of the matter is that you actually have to work to find an optical
player that makes a CD sound different from the digital files that it was
mastered from (in the sense of trascription from the final digital file to
plastic). I'm sure they exist, but they may be pretty hard to find. Norm
Strong seems to be saying that even $9.95 portables sound pretty good these
days. I don't know as my last portable CD player cost me $29.95 and still
seems to be running strong.

BTW, I must admit that my favorite portable player is a Nomad Jukebox III
loaded with .wav files - very, very high end compared to where Norm is. ;-)
I believe it outperforms SP's favorite iPod, but its not nearly as hip
looking. I consider portable CD players to be cannon fodder for extreme
backwoods hiking trips and the like.

My last attempt at finding a bad-sounding optical disc player involved an
APEX 1200 DVD player. It cost me $39.95 at a local appliance store. It
outputs 2-channel analog, multichanel optical and coax audio, along with
coax and S-video progressive-scan video. It plays just about every common
audio and video format known including MP3, other than SACD and DVD-A. At
the rate that SACD and DVD-A are crashing in the marketplace, tune in next
year! Not only does it have FR, THD, IM, and DR sufficient to be sonically
perfect, it can vastly outperform any known recording that would be played
on it, and it comes within a hair's breadth of fully exploiting the
theoretical limits of the CD format.

As an aside, this $39.95 Apex DVD player has lower THD than about half of
the high end CD players whose reviews are posted at the Stereophile web
site. Their typical price is also in the region of 3995, only with the
decimal point moved a couple of places to the right...

Given that this cheap Apex player is almost universally available in the US
for next to nothing, I challenge any proponent of high end optical players
to do a time-synched, level-matched, double-blind listening test comparing
it to a high-end CD player that measures at least half as well, (IOW, better
than twice the noise and distortion - i.e., 0.2 dB or better FR instead of
the Apex's 0.1 dB) and prove that they can reliably hear a difference.

BTW, I had a Cal-Audio CL-10 CD player (used to list for around
$1600 I think) that I used for a year or so before being forced
to sell it. I really liked the player and its sound. The guy that
bought it said that it would not track right and kept skipping on
him. Through a series of discussions I discovered that he had it
on some kind of exotic tip-toes. I told him to take it off the
tip-toes and put it directly on the shelf. He's not had any
problems with it since. As near as I can figure it, the tip-toes
may have been allowing internal transport resonances to occur
fouling up the disk read operations. In any event, a "quality" CD
player shouldn't be doing that.

As a rule, good mid-fi optical players don't seem to care what you set them
on, including a big subwoofer that is stroking away. I guess you have to pay
the big bucks to get this kind of susceptibility to vibrations. I've long
suspected that high end components are often engineered to increase the
diddle factor, and also maximize the emotional pain and suffering of the
user.

There is very little angst when inexpensive hardware breaks. You just break
out some small change and hit the nearest appliance store or supermarket.
Yup, a local supermarket chain was recently advertising cheap DVD players as
part of a grand opening promotion. They didn't say what brand in their ads,
but odds are about 50-50 that it was Apex. BTW, some or all of the
competitive players might be about as good if not better!

On 13 Jul 2004 16:27:14 -0700, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

One quick question though. When I plugged the various 1 meter length
power cables into the wall, it suddenly struck me that the 1 meter
I plugged in was a fairly minor portion of the 10 meters between the
CD player and the circuit breaker panel. Surely, when I changed that
1 meter portion, it did not change the remaining 10 meters.

You're trying a bit too hard :-)

If the power cable DOES do something, it does it when it does it.
It's irrelevant that it WASN'T being done in the rest of the cable
back to the power station.


By your reasoning, there would be no point in modulating a voltage to
produce sound in a loudspeaker. The voltage is unmodulated all the
way back to the power station? What's the point in rectifying and
modulating it in the final few inches of its path to the user? :-)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On 13 Jul 2004 16:27:14 -0700, (Dick Pierce)
wrote:

One quick question though. When I plugged the various 1 meter length
power cables into the wall, it suddenly struck me that the 1 meter
I plugged in was a fairly minor portion of the 10 meters between the
CD player and the circuit breaker panel. Surely, when I changed that
1 meter portion, it did not change the remaining 10 meters.

You're trying a bit too hard :-)

If the power cable DOES do something, it does it when it does it.
It's irrelevant that it WASN'T being done in the rest of the cable
back to the power station.

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue what power cables do.

By your reasoning, there would be no point in modulating a voltage to
produce sound in a loudspeaker. The voltage is unmodulated all the
way back to the power station? What's the point in rectifying and
modulating it in the final few inches of its path to the user? :-)

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue as to the difference
between a power cable and a power amplifier. Hey power amps and power cables
can't be that different, after all their names both start out with "power".
;-)

But, I bet you could pass it for revealed truth in an high end audio store
or high end audio magazine. Need a second career, Laurence?

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If the power cable DOES do something, it does it when it does it.
It's irrelevant that it WASN'T being done in the rest of the cable
back to the power station.

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue what power cables
do.

If the power cable behaves like a low- or bandpass filter, it will
have an influence, by reducing the HF hash transported thru the mains
and/or picked by other parts of the mains cabling.

Only if the equipment it hooks to is a poor design.

And don't serve me your usual **** about "well designed amplifiers
don't care about mains quality", Krueger.

Sorry that you have such low standards for amplifier design, François.

Why don't you list your favorite amps, so I can avoid them?

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message


On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:31:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Only if the equipment it hooks to is a poor design.

Here we go. The Kroo**** behaves exactly as expected and announced:

nothing quoted by François

François is clearly in meltdown mode.

And don't serve me your usual **** about "well designed amplifiers
don't care about mains quality", Krueger.

RFI is a real world problem.

Amplifiers that work well in high-RFI environments are anything but
uncommon.

Except for a solitary Bozo such as you who plays with his obsolete PC's.

You're frothing at the mouth, François.

Why don't you get a life, loser?

Say what?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:57:43 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:31:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Only if the equipment it hooks to is a poor design.

Here we go. The Kroo**** behaves exactly as expected and announced:
And don't serve me your usual **** about "well designed amplifiers
don't care about mains quality", Krueger.

RFI is a real world problem.

With real-world solutions - which don't necessarily even include a
requirement for a solid earth connection.

Except for a solitary Bozo such as you who
plays with his obsolete PC's.

Why don't you get a life, loser?

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie? Effective
RFI suppression has been a *legal requirement* for European hi-fi gear
for more than a decade, and I suspect that the same is true of US
gear.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If the power cable behaves like a low- or bandpass filter, it will have an
influence, by reducing the HF hash transported thru the mains and/or
picked
by other parts of the mains cabling.

So what you need is a cheap clip on ferrite ring, if you think that's the
problem.
Or better yet why not use a properly designed mains filter if necessary?

TonyP.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:57:43 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:31:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Only if the equipment it hooks to is a poor design.

And don't serve me your usual **** about "well designed amplifiers
don't care about mains quality", Krueger.

RFI is a real world problem.

No doubt. But it is often a solved problem.

With real-world solutions - which don't necessarily even include a
requirement for a solid earth connection.

Ain't that the truth!

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie? Effective
RFI suppression has been a *legal requirement* for European hi-fi gear
for more than a decade, and I suspect that the same is true of US
gear.

AFAIK, the specific legal requirements for US gear relate to controlling how
much RFI is outbound. The FCC position on EMI resistance of audio gear seems
to be bit vague.

However, particularly with equipment intended for professional use such as
in a radio station, RFI resistance is obviously on every manufacturer's
list. There are a lot of good sounding amps that are sold for use by radio
stations!

Now that personal radio transmitters are widely-used consumer commodity
items, it's hard to imagine anybody who wants to stay in business ignoring
the issue.

I guess Frankie is off his meds again. Last time we conversed it was even
kinda civil. I should have known it couldn't last.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


If the power cable DOES do something, it does it when it does it.
It's irrelevant that it WASN'T being done in the rest of the cable
back to the power station.

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue what power cables do.

By your reasoning, there would be no point in modulating a voltage to
produce sound in a loudspeaker. The voltage is unmodulated all the
way back to the power station? What's the point in rectifying and
modulating it in the final few inches of its path to the user? :-)

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue as to the difference
between a power cable and a power amplifier. Hey power amps and power cables
can't be that different, after all their names both start out with "power".
;-)


Leaving my facetious reductio ad absurdum aside, think again.

A couple of ferrite rings on a power cable COULD make a difference?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:37:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie? Effective
RFI suppression has been a *legal requirement* for European hi-fi gear
for more than a decade, and I suspect that the same is true of US
gear.

Interesting. Is the requirement not to PRODUCE interference, or to
be adequately shielded against it?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message news
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


If the power cable DOES do something, it does it when it does it.
It's irrelevant that it WASN'T being done in the rest of the cable
back to the power station.

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue what power cables
do.

By your reasoning, there would be no point in modulating a voltage
to produce sound in a loudspeaker. The voltage is unmodulated all
the way back to the power station? What's the point in rectifying
and modulating it in the final few inches of its path to the user?
:-)

This would make sense to anybody who has no clue as to the
difference between a power cable and a power amplifier. Hey power
amps and power cables can't be that different, after all their names
both start out with "power". ;-)

Leaving my facetious reductio ad absurdum aside, think again.

Just guess here, but odds are pretty good chance that there aren't a lot
people around here with more real-world experience with high-intensity EMI
than yours truely. There's the slight matter of my past career as a radar
technican, military style. It is a fact that the outdoor RF levels in at
least one place I worked was strong enough to possibly set off conventional
ammunition. Since the ammo was carefully inventoried, I never actually did a
field test. If I had a nickel for every time I got on the phone and the
conversation went something like this: "Point that %$#@! radar some other
way, its heating us up and making us sweat too much!" BTW this isn't that
exceptional even today. I know of people who had their silver fillings
replaced with plastic so they could get more tower time.

A couple of ferrite rings on a power cable COULD make a difference?

*anything* can make a difference in a sufficiently pathological
circumstance.

But back in the real world, well-designed gear works as delivered and snake
oil is just that.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:46:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:37:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie? Effective
RFI suppression has been a *legal requirement* for European hi-fi gear
for more than a decade, and I suspect that the same is true of US
gear.

Interesting. Is the requirement not to PRODUCE interference, or to
be adequately shielded against it?

When you are designing electronic equipment, the one pretty much
implies the other. Bear in mind though that the topic here is
conducted interference, not radiated. The power supply in any piece of
audio equipment is a massively effective lowpass filter.

When you ask a question like "could a ferrite ring do more?", then you
are always going to get the answer "yes" from an engineer, because
that is the truth. But you must understand what "more" means in the
context. Maybe it adds 1dB of improvement at some frequency in the
upper audio range. Fine, but when that 1dB is on top of 100dB already
provided by the PSU, what would be the significance? Add to this the
fact that the noise level from this source is already vanishingly
small compared to that from other, non-negotiable sources, and the
addition is meaningless.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:41:45 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

So what you need is a cheap clip on ferrite ring, if you think
that's the problem.
Or better yet why not use a properly designed mains filter if
necessary?

Agreed on both points. I'm not defending audiofool mains cable, but
merely correcting Krüger, again, when he states that mains cables
can't have any form of influence.

Which of course is something that Frankie made up, not anything I said.

Power cables are very influential on the operation of audio gear that need
an external source of power. Pull the plug on a line-operated audio system
and see what happens!

François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:56:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Which of course is something that Frankie made up, not anything I said.

[...des sottises...]

Ecoute mon vieux, si tu penses que ce genre de parole pourrait convaincre
qui que ce soit de la sagesse de tes propos, desabuse-toi. Tu ne fais que
convaincre tout le monde que tu es bien mal eleve.


Ah, oui, j'ai oublie: plonque.


Francois.

"Si les cons pouvaient voler, il serait the chef d'escadrille."

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:46:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:37:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie? Effective
RFI suppression has been a *legal requirement* for European hi-fi gear
for more than a decade, and I suspect that the same is true of US
gear.

Interesting. Is the requirement not to PRODUCE interference, or to
be adequately shielded against it?

Both. There are regulations concerning both RF emissions and EMI
susceptibility. I forget the number, but it's an ISO standard on
electromagnetic compatibility, and applies to all electrical goods
sold within the EU. Any CE-marked audio gear must comply.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:57:21 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:37:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Why don't you get some knowledge about amplifiers, Frankie?

Pinkerton, maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you didn't lack
even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a imbecile.

Care to try that again, in English this time?

Why don't
you get back to the pub and get drunk, again, instead of drooling on your
keyboard?

Argued with your usual wit and brilliance, Frankie.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:04:07 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:12:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Care to try that again, in English this time?

This was proper English, drunkard. I'm sorry that your basic comprehension
skills are so limited, but, heck, after a full frontal lobotomy, what should
we expect?

OK, we'll excuse you on the basis that English isn't your first
language, but I note that you carefully excised your ungrammatical
drivel from your typical hissy-fit reply............................

Of course, anyone with real wit on those two points would have replied
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy", but
that would just fly straight over your low-browed simian skull -
right, Frankie?

Oh, and stop humping my leg like a permed pink poodle in heat, Bozo.

You wish, Frankie da Frog.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:01:53 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:09:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I forget the number,

I.e. our resident drunkard doesn't know squat about the subject. As usual.

Interesting that your reply was entirely without substance - as usual.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering