, I’ll not mention the name so it doesn’t influence any responses, that the rule of thumb is that in order for the pwr cord to be effective it needs to be at least five feet long.
Really? That’s why? That was your reason? Huh?
Shunyata .
http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/shunyata_visit_interview.htm
So what exactly does the DTCD Analyzer measure? As the name implies, it measures, in the context of a pulsed current draw, instantaneous current delivery in amperes and voltage drop across the device during the conduction period and the stored residual noise component rate of dissipation after the conduction period.
Food for though. For those that believe most of the EMI/RFI noise generated in the ac power feeding the power supplies of audio equipment is actually generated from the associated audio equipment of the audio system equipment consider this.
IF you believe that two dedicated branch circuit is better than one to decouple the power supply’s of a CDP from an amplifier, there by preventing the digital hash from the CDP going back out on the power cord and then reentering the power cord of the amplifier, then why is it so hard to understand that a power cord couldn’t be designed to help do the same thing?
What IF you have a CDP and an integrated amplifier plugged into the same wall duplex receptacle using the OEM power cords that came with the equipment. Will the two power supplies of the CDP and amp be more likely coupled together than they would if they were fed from two dedicated branch circuits?
What IF a well designed power cord can reject the digital hash, (call it what you want, RFI, harmonics, high frequencies, what ever), from going back out on the CDP power cord to the duplex receptacle and then reentering the power cord of the amp’s power supply. Would that be a good thing?
So, IF you believe such a power cord can be designed and built which do you think could accomplish the task better, a power cord that is 2ft in length or one that is 5ft in length?