Why Power Cables Affect Sound


I just bought a new CD player and was underwhelmed with it compared to my cheaper, lower quality CD player. That’s when it hit me that my cheaper CD player is using an upgraded power cable. When I put an upgraded power cable on my new CD player, the sound was instantly transformed: the treble was tamed, the music was more dynamic and lifelike, and overall more musical. 

This got me thinking as to how in the world a power cable can affect sound. I want to hear all of your ideas. Here’s one of my ideas:

I have heard from many sources that a good power cable is made of multiple gauge conductors from large gauge to small gauge. The electrons in a power cable are like a train with each electron acting as a train car. When a treble note is played, for example, the small gauge wires can react quickly because that “train” has much less mass than a large gauge conductor. If you only had one large gauge conductor, you would need to accelerate a very large train for a small, quick treble note, and this leads to poor dynamics. A similar analogy might be water in a pipe. A small pipe can react much quicker to higher frequencies than a large pipe due to the decreased mass/momentum of the water in the pipe. 

That’s one of my ideas. Now I want to hear your thoughts and have a general discussion of why power cables matter. 

If you don’t think power cables matter at all, please refrain from derailing the conversation with antagonism. There a time and place for that but not in this thread please. 
128x128mkgus
@mkgus


This got me thinking as to how in the world a power cable can affect sound. I want to hear all of your ideas.



Ok. Here’s one: It could be your perception that changed, not the actual sound. Bias, expectation effect, imagination, etc. There are many biases - "expectation bias" being one well known bias where you expect the "better" or more expensive item to perform better and...viola!...it does!

But a very important point to absorb is that such expectation bias is not at all the whole story in terms of explaining perceptual phenomena. Even if you don’t go in with an opinion either way that A will sound better, or even different, than B, the mere act of focusing your attention to look for differences can in of itself cause the perception of the sound to "change." This is amply demonstrated by blind tests were you don’t switch between A and B but the subject thinks you are switching. Often enough they’ll choose one as sounding better than the "other" even though they are listening to the same thing.

And you don’t even have to be in the mindset of looking for a difference to go awry in your inferences. Again, our minds and nervous system are quite plastic and for a myriad of reasons something can please one day, but not another. So someone can put on his system and find "I like the way it sounds today better than I did yesterday." And then he can *presume* that this alteration in perception had an objective source, so "something changed in the system, not me." "Oh...little did I know I’d left X tweak on the component" or whatever, so THAT must have caused the system to sound better *even though I wasn’t trying to perceive any differences!*

Our senses and cognition are amazing. But far from perfect. And unfortunately they introduce these types of variables in to the problem of trying to ascertain what’s happening in any perceptual pursuit. You can just ignore this, as many do. But if we want to really be careful about trying to understand the nature of an apparent change, the ideal method takes perceptual bias and error into account.

As I’ve written before several times: I once thought an expensive power cord "obviously" changed the sound of my system.

But...I knew that as compelling as my subjective experience was, I could be in error. When I blind tested it against a cheap power cord, every "obviously different" aspect of it’s sound from the cheap power cord vanished. Trying to tell a difference was utterly random. To engage in blind testing is to get a real lesson in the power of perceptual bias.Many assume perceptual biases produce only very subtle effects. No, they can be quite profound.


Now...that ISN’T to say other explanations aren’t correct, and that the power cord did in fact alter the signal audibly in the way you perceived.

But, if you are really that interested in the truth of your experience, I think the above is well worth considering.

Personally, though I am open to the idea of AC cables changing the sound, I am at this point skeptical due to my own experience with them, particularly the lessons learned blind testing those and other items, and because the claims made by manufacturers are of a frankly suspicious nature - claims made about technical problems in AC causing audible problems, but virtually never objective evidence for the product’s claims in the audio domain.And over the years I’ve seen electrical engineers (who don’t have a vested interest in selling cables) eviscerate many of the fishy claims by AC cable manufacturers.

Hey...you asked... ;-)

Cheers.


Recall that there is no net flow of electons in an altenating current.

Here’s what I think is the fundamental reason why good power cables sound better than less expensive ones, or those with less sophisticated engineering.

Noise.

I think that better power cables have a higher degree of noise rejection from the line and, as a result, are not passing this on to the power transformer, power caps and beyond. That would translate into higher S/N, which the ear is quite sensitive to.
Oh, and Geoff, I see you brought up the photon thing again. Photons are particles of light energy. Light does not propagate through opaque solids like wire; it stops them in their tracks. And yes, photons are always moving. It doesn’t take much displacement of electrons in a wire to create electromotive power to do some real work. But it’s not photons, and if you believe it is, please turn your belief into a peer reviewed reference or two so that I can read and examine the data that supports your theory, otherwise there’s simply no basis from which I or anyone else should believe you. I’m waiting. It’s simply electrons in wire that are the particles of electromotive force, along with the protons, of course, but the protons stay put yet provide the + charge to keep the electrons, that are negatively charged, in their atomic orbitals. And, recall that photons have no net charge.

Citations please?
Kat a mite fears citations or peer review like a you know what in church. 🙀
@geoffkait 

Sorry, but the electrons are moving and it's not accurate to say that their agregate motion equals null motion. Photons are the force carrier that move them and that's extremely important, but the motion of the electrons is what's really going on on. All one needs to do is understand how a BJT transistor works. The mechanism of their operation is the physical motion of electrons between differently doped regions. A P doped regions doesn't have photon holes. It has electron holes. The physics of a transistor are dictated by the motion of electrons.