Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"...

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In light of the fact that I accurately quoted the Petri-Larmi study that I referenced (AES 1980) and that the quotation was affirmed by the Petri-Larmi "smoking gun" paper that you erroneously referenced (IEEE 1980), would you like to revise your opinion regarding my research, comments and calculations regarding the audibility of signal noise reduction due to higher quality power cables?

Well keep waiting. As I said above, if it's 33 to 53 times greater than the threshold of audibility, why can't it be demonstrated? Should be easy, yet it's never done.

steveinaz

I think a BEER summit is in order.

BeefJerky

Okay, so after being away for a day, I see that I have missed quite a bit of good information in this thread. Therefore, I am not going to do my usual quote-fest; rather, I will just address certain posters and hopefully say what I feel I need to say. That said, if I missed something in particular, let me know and I will try to address it.

First, DK:
Your recent posts have been very informative. To say that they actually provided the information I was seeking would be an understatement. Sadly, I wasn't aware that there was a part 2 to your power line noise study since I didn't bother to read any of the replies that were made in the thread for part 1. I also don't recall anyone pointing part 2 out to me in this thread, however, if someone did I apologize for missing it.

Based on your FFT's of the audio output (even more so at the speaker input), there is a real difference in noise between the stock power cord and the upgraded one. This surprised me, but I cannot and will not deny the proof before my eyes. Based on your measurements and the references to the two Petri-Larmi studies, it seems that it is well within the threshold of hearing for some people. This seems quite reasonable since some do claim to hear differences in power cables, while others do not. It doesn't tell me whether I will be able to hear a difference, but it tells me that it is something that I should at least try. As you mentioned, it also may be dependent on my equipment. Mine is not exactly high-end (especially compared to some here), but there still may be a difference; possibly even a larger difference in terms of noise reduction compared to your study. I say this because I would imagine your higher-end monoblocks would have even better filtration in them in relation mine.

That said, I would still like to see a proper blind study done on the subject, if simply for curiosity's sake. At some point, there was another person here who seemed willing to join in on it, but I'm not sure if he still is. However, if there is still interest and the logistics can be worked out, I think it would be a fun and interesting experiment!

SDA1C:
I was going to point out that I still think the "night and day" or "in your face" difference some claim is overblown. However, SDA1C does bring up a good point. One person's definition of a large difference may not be the same as another's. For example, while an artist may be able to pick out miniscule details and meanings in art, someone like me would never notice them.

Headrott:
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, your primary point of issue is that the placebo effect was not originally intended for use in the audio world, and therefore ABX/DBT's aren't applicable in that world either.

First, just because something wasn't originally intended for a particular use doesn't mean that it cannot actually be used for that. That is like saying: computers weren't originally intended for use in the home, so they shouldn't be used there. No, they weren't intended for that originally, but they have found purpose there.

It also turns out that placebo and ABX/DBT does have a valid use in the audio world. Bell Labs and many others would disagree with your contention that DBT/ABX shouldn't be used at all in audio. The real issue comes down to whether or not they are applicable for use with more complex forms of audio, such as stereophonic music reproduction. There seems to be evidence from both sides of the argument, so I don't expect to be able to conclusively prove my point. At the same time, there isn't any overwhelming evidence saying that it isn't, so I don't intend on changing my point of view either; at least not at this point in time.

So, until there comes a time when more conclusive evidence is available, I say we live and let live on the subject. Or, if you prefer the McCartney version: live and let die.

DK/Maximillian/Joe08867:
Max, I understand what digital means, and I also understand how the information is transferred between digital components. When I refer to a "digital cable," I am specifically referring to the cable that connects two digital components together; for example, the digital output of a CDP and the input of a DAC (both coaxial and fiber optic, maybe even HDMI). My belief is that the connecting cable would have to quite a bit out-of-spec to make any sort of audible difference. Furthermore, I contend that two different in-spec cables shouldn't affect the analog output from the DAC.

DK, there is a reason I mention your name in conjunction with this part of my reply. Have you done any studies on digital interconnect cables and differences in the analog outputs? If not, would it be something that you would be interested in doing? I ask because I am very curious on this, and I'd like to see whether my claims are correct or not. In addition, you have the equipment and knowledge to do something like this; many don't, including me. If I'm wrong, then it would be yet another type of cable that I would try in my system and with my ears.

CCNJ:
I actually thank you for "starting this mess." I have enjoyed the discussion thus far, and furthermore I learned something. Without your original comment, I may never have discovered DK's excellent study, and therefore missed out on that bit of knowledge. So, thanks!

Dorokusai:
I like your take on the subject. However, I can understand how some can get so engrossed in the hobby, and get to the point of noticing miniscule details that others might not. For example, I would notice a small difference in the way the transmission shifted in my or my mother's car. However, it would take a large change for her to notice. We're talking something like a loud clunk, or not even going into gear; maybe she'd notice something like a very hard shift, but I dunno.

Tommyt21:
"Can't we all just have a beer and get along"
I don't drink (or like) beer. However, if you hook me up with a good, strong margarita I'll be good to go. :cheesygrin:

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Well keep waiting. As I said above, if it's 33 to 53 times greater than the threshold of audibility, why can't it be demonstrated? Should be easy, yet it's never done.

Ummmmmmm are you really that dense? I believe the study demonstrated that as did DK's complete and thorough write-up and analysis. It's time for you to put up or stfu and try it for yourself. If you have tried it and didn't hear a difference then why are you arguing? The evidence shows a measured difference which should be enough to show you it's possible. If you can't muster the courage to try it, then you have no business discussing it. If you have tried it and can't hear a difference then that's that, YOU can't hear a difference on your rig with your ears. That's all anyone has asked, is to try it.

H9

decal

This was fun for a while, now it's just boring. Bop on boppers.

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

Ummmmmmm are you really that dense? I believe the study demonstrated that as did DK's complete and thorough write-up and analysis.

Are you really that dense? The study showed the ability to hear distortion artificially inserted into certain passages of music, not the audibility of power cords. I also find DK's measurements very suspect, as if the distortion an a power line wouldn't vary more than .06% over time, without changing a thing.

Now STFU.

heiney9

And since you find DK's measurement "highly suspect" I assume you have done your own round of experiments. Care to share your indepth findings? Or are you just running your mouth again and making assumptions.

H9

tonyb

BeefJerky wrote: »

but it tells me that it is something that I should at least try.

9 pages.....and you finally got it. Thats all anyone can ask, and did so repeatedly. Do we need another 9 pages of crap to convince you to try different IC's too ?

The constant in all these types of threads is to just try different things. You may hear a difference, you may not, but at least you can plant your feet in the camp of experience.

codyc1ark

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It's not always a case of not being able to hear well enough, but rather a case of not knowing how to listen. Many people have to learn how to properly perceive a stereophonic sound field. This was explicitly stated by some of the early researchers in stereophonic systems.

BINGO! I know I've had to rethink the way I listen to music at times, of course when I'm riding down the road I don't pay nearly as much attention when I'm sitting down with the rig for an hour with a glass of Mark, closing my eyes and hitting play. There is something to be said for a serious session of tunes.

tonyb

codyc1ark wrote: »

BINGO! I know I've had to rethink the way I listen to music at times, of course when I'm riding down the road I don't pay nearly as much attention when I'm sitting down with the rig for an hour with a glass of Mark, closing my eyes and hitting play. There is something to be said for a serious session of tunes.

Double Bingo. Abso-effin-lutely. DK made a very good point in bringing that up. Casual listening, which is what most do, is way different than sitting down and paying attention to tone, soundstage height and width, placement of the musicians on the stage, etc.

The flip side of that is, for me anyway, is that you get so used to critical listening, you keep doing it in a casual listening atmosphere. Which lends itself to disappointment instead of just chillin' and enjoying the tunes. I've had to teach myself when to turn that critical ear on and off.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Are you really that dense? The study showed the ability to hear distortion artificially inserted into certain passages of music, not the audibility of power cords. I also find DK's measurements very suspect, as if the distortion an a power line wouldn't vary more than .06% over time, without changing a thing.

The Petri-Larmi study (the AES study, not the IEEE study) showed that trained and sensitive listeners using good equipment can hear the effects of extremely low levels of distortion.

In post 201 of this thread, I showed two FFT plots showing the effects of two different power cords on the signal going to the loudspeakers. Since the noise content in both speaker cable FFT plots was much higher than the noise content in the Petri-Larmi study, it should be clear that it is possible to hear a difference between the two power cords.

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

Headrott:
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, your primary point of issue is that the placebo effect was not originally intended for use in the audio world, and therefore ABX/DBT's aren't applicable in that world either.

First, just because something wasn't originally intended for a particular use doesn't mean that it cannot actually be used for that. That is like saying: computers weren't originally intended for use in the home, so they shouldn't be used there. No, they weren't intended for that originally, but they have found purpose there.

It also turns out that placebo and ABX/DBT does have a valid use in the audio world. Bell Labs and many others would disagree with your contention that DBT/ABX shouldn't be used at all in audio. The real issue comes down to whether or not they are applicable for use with more complex forms of audio, such as stereophonic music reproduction. There seems to be evidence from both sides of the argument, so I don't expect to be able to conclusively prove my point. At the same time, there isn't any overwhelming evidence saying that it isn't, so I don't intend on changing my point of view either; at least not at this point in time.

So, until there comes a time when more conclusive evidence is available, I say we live and let live on the subject. Or, if you prefer the McCartney version: live and let die.

Please go back to my posts and read the number of times I said "stereophonic audio", not just audio. It was every time. We are talking about stereophonic audio in this thread correct?

I am not saying that because the placebo was not intended to be used in stereophonic audio, therefore ABX/DBT tests aren't either. I am saying (again) that placebo, ABX, DBT's were not intended for use in stereophonic audio and specifically (again) placebo is not applicable because (again):

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

Also, using computers as an example of muti-use applications is not a good example because no testing methods and standards were set up for using computers in military and/or business settings vurses home settings. Your example of the use of computers is not fit for comparing to use of placebo, ABX, DBT's in stereophonic audio.

Now that I have had to beat this horse dead because of the need to repeat myself 3 to 4 times, hopefully you understand what my points are.

I was going to bring up the last part of the quote above (again) because you still have not addressed it, but after reading you plan on trying power cables in your system I will let it go. I hope you really do try a number of power cables in your system. Would you mind listing what your system consists of? Just trying to figure out what resolution your audio system has. It really does make a difference.

Greg

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

First, DK:
Your recent posts have been very informative. To say that they actually provided the information I was seeking would be an understatement. Sadly, I wasn't aware that there was a part 2 to your power line noise study since I didn't bother to read any of the replies that were made in the thread for part 1. I also don't recall anyone pointing part 2 out to me in this thread, however, if someone did I apologize for missing it.

The first noise study was the first in an ongoing series which now comprises ten articles covering power cords, passive power conditioners, AC regenerators, dedicated AC circuits and audio grade fuses. Here is a link to the 10th article:

Studies-On-Residential-Power-Line-Noise-Part-10-PS-Audio-P10-AC-Regenerator

The second post in the 10th article has links to the other 9 articles.

BeefJerky wrote: »

Based on your FFT's of the audio output (even more so at the speaker input), there is a real difference in noise between the stock power cord and the upgraded one. This surprised me, but I cannot and will not deny the proof before my eyes. Based on your measurements and the references to the two Petri-Larmi studies, it seems that it is well within the threshold of hearing for some people. This seems quite reasonable since some do claim to hear differences in power cables, while others do not. It doesn't tell me whether I will be able to hear a difference, but it tells me that it is something that I should at least try. As you mentioned, it also may be dependent on my equipment. Mine is not exactly high-end (especially compared to some here), but there still may be a difference; possibly even a larger difference in terms of noise reduction compared to your study. I say this because I would imagine your higher-end monoblocks would have even better filtration in them in relation mine.

Thank you for your understanding. That is the point. I don't understand people getting all up in arms because someone said they tried something and received a particular result. I have never said anything along the lines of "if YOU try this, this is the result you will get".

BeefJerky wrote: »

That said, I would still like to see a proper blind study done on the subject, if simply for curiosity's sake.

Nothing wrong with a proper blind test. I do them frequently.

BeefJerky wrote: »

So, until there comes a time when more conclusive evidence is available, I say we live and let live on the subject. Or, if you prefer the McCartney version: live and let die.

There can never be conclusive evidence for anything that affects peoples senses and perceptions. Medical trials can provide "conclusive" evidence that a particular treatment worked for a statistically relevant sample of subjects. That does not mean it will work for every person who takes it. Something which cures one person can kill another.

The main thing is, you have to try things for yourself under the proper conditions using an appropriate testing method.

BeefJerky wrote: »

DK, there is a reason I mention your name in conjunction with this part of my reply. Have you done any studies on digital interconnect cables and differences in the analog outputs?

No.

BeefJerky wrote: »

If not, would it be something that you would be interested in doing?

I agree that it would be an interesting study, but this is not something I am interested in doing.

I became interested in the power cord and power conditioning device studies because I was fascinated by the fact that something well outside the audio signal chain could have such a profound effect on audio signal quality. I think it is well understood that anything inserted into the audio signal path is going to have an effect on the signal. Whether that effect is audible or not depends on the listener, the equipment and the listening environment. I was curious to find out the technical reasons behind what I was hearing from power cords and other power conditioning devices.

I was in this hobby for a couple of decades before I tried my first aftermarket power cord, an inexpensive Signal Cable MagicPower cord. It, along with every power cord I have tried since then, came with a money back guarantee. Therefore all I risked was time and shipping costs.

My power cord studies document that sometimes I heard a difference and improvement and sometimes I did not. I also documented that when power cords did make a difference, the difference varied based on the the equipment they were used with. Sometimes I tried a high performance power cord and didn't hear a benefit. After upgrading my audio equipment, I would revisit the rejected cord and an improvement would be evident.

I don't think there is any rational reason for perceived differences in audio equipment to be a contentious, divisive or derisive matter. If someone says they put a cuckoo clock in their listening room and it improved their listening pleasure, I don't feel the need to pounce on them asking for scientific "proof" and/or to ridicule them for how they pursue this hobby. To each his own. If I post a review or research results, I am not insisting that everyone needs to adopt what worked for me. I am only documenting my experience and offering suggestions.

heiney9

I am not trying to dump on BJ and his gear, but in my opinion and experience using a mid level Onkyo receiver as part of a system is not going to reveal many of the nuances we so commonly talk about in regards to cables, etc. He said he had an Onk receiver. So in the end moving up the line in gear will probably give more positive results than trying to buy a $300 power cable for his current gear.

steveinaz

RAIFE, don't go muddying the waters with measured data....LOL

Give it up fellas, you're talking to brick walls.

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

Please go back to my posts and read the number of times I said "stereophonic audio", not just audio. It was every time. We are talking about stereophonic audio in this thread correct?

Yes. However, there was section in your prior post where you said:
"First off, I never said I didn't believe in "placebo effect" when it comes to audio (an opinion), I said that it was not intended to be used for audio (a fact). So, by that logic, I believe (to make us on the "same page") I said that a placebo was intended to be used for medicinal purposes, whereas a placebo was not intended to be used for stereophonic audio testing. As in my quote above stating:"

I suppose that's the part that confused me since you didn't actually mention stereophonic there. However, when taken in context with the rest of your post it is clear you were talking about stereophonic audio; I'll take blame for that.

I am not saying that because the placebo was not intended to be used in stereophonic audio, therefore ABX/DBT tests aren't either. I am saying (again) that placebo, ABX, DBT's were not intended for use in stereophonic audio and specifically (again) placebo is not applicable because (again):
"Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?"

I've already made it clear that the word placebo alone doesn't really have the same meaning when outside of the context of the word effect. When used in context it refers to a change within the human body based on expectations alone. In other words, it certainly can refer to a change in audible perception based on expectations. But, it seems like you don't believe that expectations can change one's perception of audio. Is that correct? If so, we are at an impasse on that subject.

Also, using computers as an example of muti-use applications is not a good example because no testing methods and standards were set up for using computers in military and/or business settings vurses home settings. Your example of the use of computers is not fit for comparing to use of placebo, ABX, DBT's in stereophonic audio.

Maybe not the best example, but the point I was trying to make is as follows:
You seem to be claiming that placebo effect, ABX and DBT aren't applicable simply because they were not originally intended for that use. That is not a valid argument! My example was to show that something intended for a particular use absolutely can be used for another purpose successfully. You keep repeating this argument, yet that isn't going to make it valid.

Now that I have had to beat this horse dead because of the need to repeat myself 3 to 4 times, hopefully you understand what my points are.

I was going to bring up the last part of the quote above (again) because you still have not addressed it, but after reading you plan on trying power cables in your system I will let it go. I hope you really do try a number of power cables in your system. Would you mind listing what your system consists of? Just trying to figure out what resolution your audio system has. It really does make a difference.

Onkyo TX-NR1009 receiver
3x Marantz MA500 amps for front stage
4x surrounds powered by receiver
2x LSi15 FR/FL
LSiC center
2x LSiFX side surround
2x LSi9 back surround

Sources:
HDMI via computer
LG BD390 blu-ray
Cable box
Technics SL-1200MK2 with Denon DL-110 cartridge into Cambridge Azur 640p preamp

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The first noise study was the first in an ongoing series which now comprises ten articles covering power cords, passive power conditioners, AC regenerators, dedicated AC circuits and audio grade fuses. Here is a link to the 10th article:

Studies-On-Residential-Power-Line-Noise-Part-10-PS-Audio-P10-AC-Regenerator

The second post in the 10th article has links to the other 9 articles.

Thank you! I will be looking through those articles when I get some time.

Thank you for your understanding. That is the point. I don't understand people getting all up in arms because someone said they tried something and received a particular result. I have never said anything along the lines of "if YOU try this, this is the result you will get".

Understood.

Nothing wrong with a proper blind test. I do them frequently.

Agreed, it definitely needs to be done proper to be worthwhile.

There can never be conclusive evidence for anything that affects peoples senses and perceptions. Medical trials can provide "conclusive" evidence that a particular treatment worked for a statistically relevant sample of subjects. That does not mean it will work for every person who takes it. Something which cures one person can kill another.

The main thing is, you have to try things for yourself under the proper conditions using an appropriate testing method.

Well, for me, it wasn't a matter of what the difference was, or how it would sound to someone, just that there was a difference. And your point about medical tests brought up the exact reason it can be hard to quantify exactly what the change is. Different people (and their senses) will react different, and therefore describe things differently. For me, a blind test is really only applicable to show if there is a difference or not, nothing more. Hopefully you can understand where I am coming from.

No.

I agree that it would be an interesting study, but this is not something I am interested in doing.

I became interested in the power cord and power conditioning device studies because I was fascinated by the fact that something well outside the audio signal chain could have such a profound effect on audio signal quality. I think it is well understood that anything inserted into the audio signal path is going to have an effect on the signal. Whether that effect is audible or not depends on the listener, the equipment and the listening environment. I was curious to find out the technical reasons behind what I was hearing from power cords and other power conditioning devices.

I was in this hobby for a couple of decades before I tried my first aftermarket power cord, an inexpensive Signal Cable MagicPower cord. It, along with every power cord I have tried since then, came with a money back guarantee. Therefore all I risked was time and shipping costs.

My power cord studies document that sometimes I heard a difference and improvement and sometimes I did not. I also documented that when power cords did make a difference, the difference varied based on the the equipment they were used with. Sometimes I tried a high performance power cord and didn't hear a benefit. After upgrading my audio equipment, I would revisit the rejected cord and an improvement would be evident.

I can understand. If it's not something you're interested in, you don't really have a motivation to do it. Your motivation for testing power related stuff makes sense to me. You want to understand something that seems "odd" or "out of place." I really thank you for taking the time to do it, regardless of whether if was just your own curiosity that drove you there.

However, if you ever do get interested in testing digital audio cables in the same way, just know that there will be a very interested audience awaiting it! :cheesygrin:

I don't think there is any rational reason for perceived differences in audio equipment to be a contentious, divisive or derisive matter. If someone says they put a cuckoo clock in their listening room and it improved their listening pleasure, I don't feel the need to pounce on them asking for scientific "proof" and/or to ridicule them for how they pursue this hobby. To each his own. If I post a review or research results, I am not insisting that everyone needs to adopt what worked for me. I am only documenting my experience and offering suggestions.

I suppose I can understand that to some extent, but my brain just doesn't work that way. If there isn't some sort of measurable or demonstrable difference, I just can't really motivate myself to try it unless it is in some sort of scientific manner. However, I don't have the instruments you do, nor do I really have friends interested in working with me to do proper blind studies.

heiney9

BeefJerky wrote:

I suppose I can understand that to some extent, but my brain just doesn't work that way. If there isn't some sort of measurable or demonstrable difference, I just can't really motivate myself to try it unless it is in some sort of scientific manner. However, I don't have the instruments you do, nor do I really have friends interested in working with me to do proper blind studies.

I am astounded that people have to be told by someone else there is a difference rather than discovering it on their own. Just listening can tell YOU if YOU hear a difference. I will never understand why someone else has to scientifically demonstrate it before you are willing to listen for it. I assume everything in life is this way for you, if not, why just for this subject, topic or hobby?

I just don't get the logic,

If someone puts a scoop of what appears to be chocolate ice cream in front of me and tells me it tastes just like banana. I don't make them prove to me scientifically it tastes like banana. It take a taste for myself to determine it tastes like banana. I don't understand why an outside person you don't even know has to demonstrate via measurements and scientific data that there is a difference before you will try and listen for a difference yourself.

I am sorry, I can't comprehend that sort of thinking. Most people don't like to be told, they like to experience for themselves.

steveinaz

Life is short, experiment.

Face

steveinaz wrote: »

I did buy some nicer, heavier gauge AC cables---nothing esoteric or worth note. Some things don't need to be tried---sorry, I calls them like sees them.

steveinaz wrote: »

Life is short, experiment.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

I am astounded that people have to be told by someone else there is a difference rather than discovering it on their own. Just listening can tell YOU if YOU hear a difference. I will never understand why someone else has to scientifically demonstrate it before you are willing to listen for it. I assume everything in life is this way for you, if not, why just for this subject, topic or hobby?

When it comes to buying things, pretty much. I don't usually have a desire to waste my time and money on trying something without some quantifiable proof of difference. Some things have obvious differences, but for things that don't, I want something more than just "it's different because I say it is." There are rare exceptions to this; something that I deeply care about, something that I put my heart and my soul into. However, while audio is great hobby, it's not that important in my life.

At any rate, power cords are a perfect example of that. It simply made no sense in my mind that they would make a difference on the audio output since they were so isolated from the signal chain. In fact, DK said that this is exactly the reason he delved into his research and testing on the subject! The difference is, he has the knowledge, proper equipment and the interest to do those kinds experiments, whereas I don't. In the end, DK gave me the information that I desired, and confirmed to me that there is at least a difference that some people can hear based on his tests and prior blind studies on noise.

Now, when it comes to how the difference affects me, or my senses, that becomes completely subjective. Therefore, I don't expect science to come out and explain it; I can discover that for myself.

I just don't get the logic,

That's okay; not everyone thinks the same way. Besides, I believe it would be a boring world if everyone did.

If someone puts a scoop of what appears to be chocolate ice cream in front of me and tells me it tastes just like banana. I don't make them prove to me scientifically it tastes like banana. It take a taste for myself to determine it tastes like banana.

That's not really applicable to my logic.

I don't understand why an outside person you don't even know has to demonstrate via measurements and scientific data that there is a difference before you will try and listen for a difference yourself.

Limited amounts of time and money. I generally choose to spend both on things that I know can provide me some difference.

I am sorry, I can't comprehend that sort of thinking. Most people don't like to be told, they like to experience for themselves.

Okay.

nooshinjohn

Raife's contributions to this forum are priceless. They should be turned into a PPV sticky, as he deserves compensation of some kind for his efforts.:cool:

BlueFox

BeefJerky wrote: »

At any rate, power cords are a perfect example of that. It simply made no sense in my mind that they would make a difference on the audio output since they were so isolated from the signal chain.

Yet, with absolutely no knowledge or experience you had no problem stating there cannot be any audible difference between either power cords or digital cables. Typical know-it-all. Wrong again. :rolleyes:

halo71

BeefJerky wrote: »

That's okay; not everyone thinks the same way. Besides, I believe it would be a boring world if everyone did.

I agree with you. But why argue till you are blue in the face against something you have not tried?

BeefJerky

BlueFox wrote: »

Yet, with absolutely no knowledge or experience you had no problem stating there cannot be any audible difference between either power cords or digital cables. Typical know-it-all. Wrong again. :rolleyes:

Yep, and I have no problem admitting that my claims were wrong; about power cords anyway.

halo71 wrote: »

I agree with you. But why argue till you are blue in the face against something you have not tried?

I like a good discussion/debate. I've already stated why I had no desire to try them myself prior to some evidence of difference.

halo71

No, arguing against something you nothing about or have no experience with is not a discussion or a debate. I call it being hard headed.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

Ummmmmmm are you really that dense?

H9, I think you have some very unrealistic expectations.

Did you see post #240 where it was demonstrated that WilliamM2 cannot distinguish between two different papers, with two different titles, with two different abstracts, published in two different journals, yet by the same authors?

If William cannot distinguish between the written word right in front of his face, is it reasonable to think that he could distinguish between two pieces of audio gear? Hence his insistance that someone else "prove" for him that a difference or improvement exists.

Whatever works mannnnn!

DarqueKnight

halo71 wrote: »

I agree with you. But why argue till you are blue in the face against something you have not tried?

Ummmm....because you like to argue?

heiney9

halo71 wrote: »

No, arguing against something you nothing about or have no experience with is not a discussion or a debate. I call it being hard headed.

That's way too logical for most of the naysayers I encounter in life. Plus, they think they know it all too. Having experience and direct knowledge and disagreeing is completely different than having no experience and no direct knowledge and disagreeing based on nothing but assumptions. We all do it to a certain extent; it's human nature but to the extent I've seen on this audio board; it's quite amazing (and not in a good way).

H9

madmax

heiney9 wrote: »

I am not trying to dump on BJ and his gear, but in my opinion and experience using a mid level Onkyo receiver as part of a system is not going to reveal many of the nuances we so commonly talk about in regards to cables, etc. He said he had an Onk receiver. So in the end moving up the line in gear will probably give more positive results than trying to buy a $300 power cable for his current gear.

I agree. At this level upgrading a power cable would be silly. I seriously doubt there could be any difference unless he had an RF interference problem or the like. Even upgraded interconnects and speaker wire would be questionable unless something were wrong with the current ones (like using cheap Monster Cables or the nasty ones that came with the AVR). Before even entering a discussion of this class daily access to a system with much more definition and lots of gear swapping experience is necessary just to grasp of the content of this discussion. I don't think he is being helped to understand what a more revealing system can offer.

Drenis

madmax wrote: »

I agree. At this level upgrading a power cable would be silly. I seriously doubt there could be any difference unless he had an RF interference problem or the like. Even upgraded interconnects and speaker wire would be questionable unless something were wrong with the current ones (like using cheap Monster Cables or the nasty ones that came with the AVR). Before even entering a discussion of this class daily access to a system with much more definition and lots of gear swapping experience is necessary just to grasp of the content of this discussion. I don't think he is being helped to understand what a more revealing system can offer.

There are some of us that just aren't fortunate enough I'll put it... to join some of you in the high accepted society known as a revealing setup. It's these posts like this that depress me because some of us are just stuck with what we got. Maybe some folks want to get the best out of what they currently own or can afford.

I have MIT IC's and speaker cables in my rig, but I use an AVR because I can't afford a nice pre nor integrate one that will satisfy the need. But at least I don't use no basic RCA AVR which I'm sure would be MUCH WORSE then a decent Onkyo AVR.

Now that's not to say that buying a $300 PC for a $300 AVR is a great suggestion, but like anything in this world, any modification big OR small will help. That applies to so many things. You can only lead the horse to the water, only he can drink from it!