hospital grade or commercial grade receptacles ?

Eldartford.

Do you agree that if the electrical signal is identical, the sound is identical?

NO, I do not. If that were the case this would be a better amp than I have. Much better specifications than my Air Tight ATM-3.

http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Kenwood_KAC_8151D

Sonofnorway, or whatever you're a son of... :)

How are outlets different than a power cord? An outlet is just a female version of a power plug. Get it? And the power cord, how is that different than the wire in the wall? If this question can't be answered this discussion is moot.

I remember reading somewhere that some fellow that produced "high-end" power cables was asked essentially the same questions I'm asking. His response was that the outlet or the power cord was just like a nozzle on a hose, and the water just like electrons. So, in his mind, outlets, plugs, and wires has just as much effect on electrical current as a nozzle has on the flow of water. Once I got done laughing I thought that, in a way, that could be vaguely true, if the outlet or the plug contained a potentiometer. But none of them do, so I started laughing again. I think it was in Stereophile, and I bet Atkinson printed it as a joke.

Albertporter...

Please do not pronounce that one who has scientific training and experience is not also capable of creative thought and artistry. Remember Leonardo Da Vinci?

You still do not grasp that I am not talking about specs on an amp. I am talking about the electrical signal that ends up applied to the speaker from whatever amp you like.

If you apply an identical signal to the speaker, will it not sound the same? So if the electrical signal is the same for two power cords, is it not reasonable to say that the resulting sound is the same? The sound is hard to measure objectively, but the electrical signal, or the difference between two signals, is capable of unambigious and precise measurement.

The sound is hard to measure objectively, but the electrical signal, or the difference between two signals, is capable of unambiguous and precise measurement.

Which results in only the measurement, not what it will sound like. By the way, I corrected your misspelling of the word "unambigious" for clarity.

I don't believe we know how to measure everything we hear. I am not saying it cannot be measured "someday" but not right now. I came to this conclusion after listening to thousands of pieces of equipment and reading the advertised and measured specifications.

A perfect example of science not imitating art is the ongoing project to measure every parameter of a Stradivarius, even down to the aging of the varnish. The goal is to build a perfect modern version. So far it has failed. We are unable to recreate what was done because (current) precise measurements of all the parts does not reveal everything we need to know.

Rather than argue that a power cord can't work, how about hooking up one and giving it a listen? I have tweaks in my system that are the absolute best available and cost $5.00 or $10.00, unfortunately I also discover some that cost a great deal more.

Either way, I use what works and care little about the claims or specifications except as information. A perfect example is the Kenwood amp I linked to. 1000 watts and lower distortion than any amp I own. I would bet money it sucks in my system.

Albertporter, my system is definitely not up to the task of letting me hear the difference between power outlets, or power cables for that matter. Nonetheless, as a previous poster insinuated, it isn't from Radio Shack either. A Levinson 39 feeds a Sony TA-E1 over a foot of balanced Blue Jeans, which feeds twin Levinson 334 amps over 45 feet of balanced Cobalt Cables, biamping a pair of Legacy Focus over about 4ft of 10awg Sound King zip cord with WBT bananas and some spades I can't remember the brand of. The power cables I described in a previous post. :) Now I suppose you're going to tell me that if I got rid of the, ahem, non-audiophile interconnects and speaker cables I could hear the difference when I switched power cables (which I just did a few months ago). Certainly my friend David thought so. If you agree with him I recommend a BS in Physics. (Advanced degrees are probably unnecessary for understanding simple stuff like audio electronics and audio frequency signal propagation.)

There are some puzzling things about this system. First, I think the ML39 sounds better feeding the Sony than it does in pre-amp mode feeding the 334's directly. It shouldn't, but I was convinced enough that it does that I bought the pre-amp. It might have something to do with the 334's having a lower than spec (100Kohm) input impedance at some frequencies, combined with whatever effects 45ft of balanced line has, but the truth is I don't know. I don't even know if the effect is real, but it seems that way. An ML32 sounded just as good as the Sony, but I wasn't paying that kind of green for a pre-amp. It was way cool though...

Then there's that bi-amping thing. What's up with that? Normally, I think bi-amping is a waste of good amplifier hardware, especially in the class of the 334. And especially considering the Focus is worth about 95db/2.83v or better (Legacy says 98db, but I'm not sure I believe them). Anyway, I try the 334's and, whoa, mucho effortless sound compared to a 335 (twice the power of a 334) or my old pair of KMA-100mk-II's. Why would that be? Well, I don't know. I suspect a bunch of reasons, but I can't prove any of them so it ain't worth discussing. Nonetheless, I bought the 334's and I've been happy ever since. So even I'm not immune to (probably) deluding myself, but at least this stuff is active circuitry in the signal path.

I'd also be willing to admit that I might be hearing differences that aren't there, and that I just may have chosen to bi-amp because it looks cool. (It does.) Every once in a while I use only one amp just to convince myself bi-amping is still better, and, funny, it always works! :)