How can power cords make a difference?

Frap: A lot of people want the "tube sound," even at the expense of a couple percent THD. That's fine. I know you can make tube circuits without that distortion, but that's not what most seem to want to hear. For the "nice sound," tubes are great. For accuracy and neutrality, I pick solid state. And actually, for a while I was experimenting with FETs to get the tube-like transfer function. That was fun, but I didn't have a practical application for it.

IMHO, the audio pioneers (not only design, but also techniques, science, etc.) included Bell and Edison, of course, but also Helmholtz, Fletcher and Munson, Alan Blumlein, Edwin Armstrong, Jack Mullin, Paul Klipsch, Ray Dolby, Rudy Van Gelder, Stanley Lipshitz, Julian Hirsch, Eugene Patronis, Kees van Imminck, John Eargle, George Martin, Harry Olson, F. Alton Everest, and many more.

Brulee: No, I did not make a boastful claim in saying that PCs do not make a difference. I've designed, built, modified, and repaired many dozens of power supplies in audio gear, and the claims that the cable purveyors make are just downright silly, just as a claim that designer air in your tires would seem silly to an automotive engineer or to a mechanic.

Do I believe that you, Jcbtubes, and others are hearing things that aren't really there? That's a very strong possibility. Sound is invisible and temporal, our hearing varies with conditions, and aural memory is evanescent. Thus, audio is susceptible to biases, misjudgment, and misperception.

BTW, what CDs did you get?

Jadem6: I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying that building Heathkits is more instructive to audio design than studying acoustics, electronics, music, psychoacoustics, etc.? Man, I've done both. I guess I could've save myself some time and tuition, eh? I'm delighted about your practical experience, but I enjoy the fruits of my own even more. If you feel that true audio excellence is attainable only by spending megabucks on power cords, well, I guess your peasants are pretty damn wealthy and out more to impress than to listen. I don't object to your spending big bucks on such things; if anyone should spend his money on snake oil, I have the least objection to your doing so.

Jcbtubes: I will add the adjective "untrue" to your latest "boastful" statement. I've heard many, many audio systems of exceptional quality that had nary a designer PC, and couldn't possibly be improved by adding any. If slavish and worshipful devotion to every cockamamie marketing scheme meant to separate audiophiles from their money is being a "winner" musically, I'll let you have that one.

702, it sounds like you have played with as many power supplies as me. And yet unlike you I don't find exotic PCs silly. I did find them silly before I tried them though - which I guess is the difference between you and me. You illustrate this point even further when you comment about "exceptional quality systems that ... couldn't possibly be improved by adding any [PCs]." How can you know that if you didn't even try.

You see I think your mind misunderstands useful theory as completely explaining natural phenomena, and you simply deduce everything from that theory. This is not scientific at all, it is pompous and short-sighted. (I don't mean to be insulting because I am guilty of being pompous and short-sighted about things I am highly educated in - usually the ones I am most educated in).

Where I do agree with you is concerning the ludicrous claims of the marketers who are paid to sell audiophiles on manufacturers' product. Anyone that has a business with shareholders is obliged to do this. You tell them what is legal, but otherwise anything that will sell the product. Some of the advertisements and "piffle" on web sites is a hoot. But there is only one difference between the audiophiles that fall for it and yourself - the fact you are better educated in electronics theory. Otherwise they are just like you and deduce from a scientific theory whether something will be beneficial or not. You and they fall into the trap of believing in the completeness of a theory.

For example, there might hypothetically be unequivocal evidence to your satisfaction that a shielded interconnect cable will sound better than an identical unshielded cable. And so as the hypothetical pioneer of shielded interconnect cables I might write some convincing rubbish for the masses that gets them into a lather that they just have to have my cables. Both you and the ignorant masses would be wrong to conclude that my cable was better than all other cables, provided there was some other parameter that affected the performance of a cable. Hypothetically my cables might use steel conductors and a competitors' might use copper. The dilemna that you do not address is how do you decide whether the shielded steel cable will outperform the unshielded copper cable. The answer seems simple to me - you listen to them. For you it appears to me that you would prefer to see what a 'scope tells you than by listening. But how can the scope identify which form of distortion is most likely to reduce the listener's enjoyment?

Of course the example includes two issues (shielding and conductivity) that you probably accept as influential on the sound, and a dilemma that can be resolved - ie. get a shielded copper cable. But it is not always that simple. And where we have the problem incessantly in these argumentative posts, is where experienced audiophiles hear a difference, and you deny that report because of your pompous and short-sighted belief that you know everything that there is to know about reproducing music electronically. Frankly 702, that is just as much a "hoot" as some of the claims of the copywriters working for the cable manufacturers.

Has anyone else heard that the guy who continues to toot his own horn is the same guy that can not get anyone else to toot it for him?
Is any one else as sick of the tooting by the high and mighty as I am? It's all clear to me now!

702, ewe say:

"I've heard many, many audio systems of exceptional quality that had nary a designer PC, and couldn't possibly be improved by adding any..."

this blatant disregard for scientific method is pitiful. i can't believe we are still arguing w/someone who purports to believe in scientific method, yet completely ignores it, & who won't even trust using the most sensitive aural measuring device known - his own ears!?! 702, WHAT ARE EWE AFRAID OF??? are ewe afraid ewe mite be wrong? afraid of discovering science HASN'T yet discovered all the answers? afraid that yule have to spend more money on wire?

jadem6, 702's horn tooting is outta tune - whether it's live, on a boombox, or thru albert porter's stereo - w/or without designer cords... ;~)

doug s.

Guys, haven't you figured it out yet? 702 is getting exactly what he wants. It's not insight, education or sharing as with most of the participants here. It's your collective goats.