The first mile: What power stations are best for audio?

[Jud]

For my money, I bet until we get telepathic and can actually see inside another person's mind, we might never know all the answers to this.

 

-Paul

 

Such things as fMRI tests (if they become sufficiently inexpensive and convenient to be done in the audio environment) may be one way of moving forward with regard to reliable data from subjective impressions, or even subconscious ones. I'm very much looking to move beyond the old arguments, which don't seem to have got us much of anywhere.

[Paul R]

Such things as fMRI tests (if they become sufficiently inexpensive and convenient to be done in the audio environment) may be one way of moving forward with regard to reliable data from subjective impressions, or even subconscious ones. I'm very much looking to move beyond the old arguments, which don't seem to have got us much of anywhere.

 

Well said brother! Telepathy by Technology - when I see a company promoting that I will buy some stock.

 

-Paul

[crenca]

You know there are chemical measurements for the constituents of food and wine, right? And what about the sound of a violin? I'm not going to let you say the comparison isn't an apt one that easily.

 

You may be right. With food, is there a whole industry that uses chemical "fidelity" as an arguement that one food is more "real" - in other words is there a "fidelity" in the taste world? I really don't know as I am a meat and potato guy myself. I do like a fine craft beer however. Now that I think about it, I have in the past accused my father of not drinking "real" beer when he drinks Bud Light...your right!

[crenca]

Such things as fMRI tests (if they become sufficiently inexpensive and convenient to be done in the audio environment) may be one way of moving forward with regard to reliable data from subjective impressions, or even subconscious ones. I'm very much looking to move beyond the old arguments, which don't seem to have got us much of anywhere.

 

This assumes the organic electro/chemical brain to consciousness equivalency (i.e. that "we" and our higher level characteristics like judgments, preferences, etc.) are merely deterministic outcomes of said organic processes. This is controversial to say the least outside fields that are not already ideologically committed to this presupposition (almost all academic "neuro psychology", etc.)

[jabbr]

Wow this discussion has taken a right angle!

 

The fact is that cables have measurable properties which given the very well known and well accepted laws of electricity i.e. Maxwell's Equations ... which btw have survived modern 20th century quantum mechanics!

 

From a very well respected source of well regarded "audiophile" equipment: https://passlabs.com/articles/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil ... now that's for speaker cable, but let's assume similar analyses can be made for AC cables.

 

That said, there are reasonable limits on what might be expected from an AC cable and these limits can be achieved with reasonable construction. For a $10,000 cable I would expect at the very least a patent. Realize that Nelson Pass publishes circuits and provides DIY instructions for his own $10,000 amps.

 

You have to love his advice:

Wire

 

Audiophiles love wire. Perhaps the appeal lies in the accessibility to understanding. Perhaps not. In any case, I like my wire thick and short, and made out of pure soft metals such as copper or silver. I like it terminated tightly and soldered where possible.

and

What if you don't want to go through the trouble but still want your money's worth? Get at least 15 pounds of amplifier for each thousand dollars spent.

[gmgraves]

I wouldn't. and you wouldn't , but try explaining to many people that "square" waves destroy tweeters !

 

 

While that is true, I've found that the cause is amps too small for the speakers - like trying to power a pair of Magnapan MMG speakers with a 25 watt-per-channel amplifier. Cost wise, they look compatible, power-wise they are not. Result? Blown tweeter fuses and sometimes blown tweeters. This is just one example, I've seen many such examples (going back to AR3s).

[gmgraves]

That's a very interesting notion. It's one I agree with, but here's the kicker - we are then required to decide just what is an extraordinary claim.

 

Many laypeople in the United States (nearly half of everyone surveyed) believe the Genesis version of origin of species rather than the theory of evolution. Does this make the theory of evolution, more than 150 years after publication of The Origin of Species, a set of extraordinary claims? Should we require extraordinary evidence, for example p-values of .01 rather than .05, for all published statistics supporting academic papers on evolution? What about quantum physics, which is just as damned weird and unbelievable as anything can be? Should we doubt quantum entanglement or the existence of the Higgs boson because all the experimental data in support hasn't been held to a higher than usual scientific standard of evidence?

 

Actually, you have it exactly wrong-side-around! In the 150 years or so since the Origin of the Species, the Genesis version of The Creation has become the extraordinary claim, not Darwin's hypothesis.

[gmgraves]

That's primarily because those who dispute this, and are suitably qualified, are too lazy to get up off their arses and try and measure them! Instead, they usually demand that those who make such claims should provide the proof, while knowing full well that they don't have the training, expertise or test equipment to do so.

 

 

I think that you are assigning nefarious agendas that don't exist to scientists and engineers. According to the (long) established precepts of the "Scientific Method, it has always been incumbent upon those making claims that cannot be substantiated by any but non-controlled observation to provide the concrete proof that such claims are valid. So, when a qualified engineer or scientist "demands" that those making a claim prove it, it's not because they are "sitting on their lazy asses", they are just asking the person making the claim to prove his assertions in accordance with the established rules of science.

[Jud]

Actually, you have it exactly wrong-side-around! In the 150 years or so since the Origin of the Species, the Genesis version of The Creation has become the extraordinary claim, not Darwin's hypothesis.

 

Of course I do, that was the (obviously too subtle) point. How are we to determine what is extraordinary - with reference to what audience? If it is with reference to those who have expertise via education and experience in the relevant discipline, then how can lay skepticism of what is claimed by audio design engineers make their claims extraordinary?

[sandyk]

I think that you are assigning nefarious agendas that don't exist to scientists and engineers. According to the (long) established precepts of the "Scientific Method, it has always been incumbent upon those making claims that cannot be substantiated by any but non-controlled observation to provide the concrete proof that such claims are valid. So, when a qualified engineer or scientist "demands" that those making a claim prove it, it's not because they are "sitting on their lazy asses", they are just asking the person making the claim to prove his assertions in accordance with the established rules of science.

George

Most members of the general public don't give a stuff about complying with " the (long) established precepts of the "Scientific Method."

Those rules apply to members of the Scientific Community. However, we regularly see members of that community trying to enforce those rules on non Scientific members (i.e. Subjectivists.) knowing full well that they are unable to comply. In other words it's often a simple case of "STFU, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am a qualified Engineer etc.!"

It's a put down, that's all.

[jabbr]

Remember that to be considered a scientific theory does not mean that there exists scientific proof -- rather that the theory itself is *dis provable* using experimental observations.

 

Religion on the other hand is true because of faith not observation

[sandyk]

While that is true, I've found that the cause is amps too small for the speakers - like trying to power a pair of Magnapan MMG speakers with a 25 watt-per-channel amplifier. Cost wise, they look compatible, power-wise they are not. Result? Blown tweeter fuses and sometimes blown tweeters. This is just one example, I've seen many such examples (going back to AR3s).

 

George

I am not disputing that, just as some amplifiers don't exit from clipping gracefully and blow fuses (or worse) . Often it's a simple case of normally adequate amplifiers being pushed past their limits when used at parties . I am sure that most of us have heard horrendous distortion and one note bass coming from neighbours too loud parties at some time or other.

 

Alex

[jabbr]

An "extraordinary" claim or observation is extraordinary because it at first glance appears to go against a large body of other observations.

 

Is not extraordinary because 99% of the population in Kentucky doesn't believe it.

[gmgraves]

George

I am not disputing that, just as some amplifiers don't exit from clipping gracefully and blow fuses (or worse) . Often it's a simple case of normally adequate amplifiers being pushed past their limits when used at parties . I am sure that most of us have heard horrendous distortion and one note bass coming from neighbours too loud parties at some time or other.

 

Alex

 

 

Sure!

[gmgraves]

George

Most members of the general public don't give a stuff about complying with " the (long) established precepts of the "Scientific Method."

Those rules apply to members of the Scientific Community. However, we regularly see members of that community trying to enforce those rules on non Scientific members (i.e. Subjectivists.) knowing full well that they are unable to comply. In other words it's often a simple case of "STFU, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am a qualified Engineer etc.!"

It's a put down, that's all.

 

 

Actually, I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the seeming fact that you are assigning some nefarious agenda to members of the scientific and engineering communities where none exists. The other fact; that many non-members of the scientific community usurp those precepts for their own purposes (as a put-down, for instance, as you suggest), doesn't make the use of those precepts by the real scientific and engineering communities any less valid or in any way meant to be mean-spirited or evil. It's a way at getting to the truth of the matter (whatever that matter might be). It is in this way that human knowledge is expanded. Without it, we'd still have self-proclaimed Alchemists searching eternally for the philosopher's stone.

 

It's simple, really, Alex. If one makes an assertion that is in some manner counter to accepted wisdom, one needs to be prepared to defend it. And if, as many who post here say, one doesn't care whether or not anyone else here believes or agrees with one, then why should one mention it at all? Not saying that you are guilty of this, but there are quite a few here who are.

[gmgraves]

Remember that to be considered a scientific theory does not mean that there exists scientific proof -- rather that the theory itself is *dis provable* using experimental observations.

 

Religion on the other hand is true because of faith not observation

 

 

That is a very cogent thought. So, if one is prone to a belief in the efficacy of, say, green CD pens, for instance, inspite of all the empirical research that says that painting one's CDs edges green does nothing, does that make the Green Pen Advocate a theorist or is Green-Pen-ism a religion?

[mansr]

That is a very cogent thought. So, if one is prone to a belief in the efficacy of, say, green CD pens, for instance, inspite of all the empirical research that says that painting one's CDs edges green does nothing, does that make the Green Pen Advocate a theorist or is Green-Pen-ism a religion?

 

Ask the prophet, Geoff Kait.

[gmgraves]

Of course I do, that was the (obviously too subtle) point. How are we to determine what is extraordinary - with reference to what audience? If it is with reference to those who have expertise via education and experience in the relevant discipline, then how can lay skepticism of what is claimed by audio design engineers make their claims extraordinary?

 

 

Yes, I realize that, your subtlety was not lost on me. Obviously, lay-persons need to rely on the wisdom of those with the credentials to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is supposed to be the raison-d'etre of magazines like Consumer's Reports, or Stereophile. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line that goal became corrupted so that it is now more about entertainment and commerce than it is about truth. Hopefully, we can count on people like John Curl, Dan D'Agostino, and Nelson Pass (among others) to have done their due diligence in preparing new products.

[sandyk]

And if, as many who post here say, one doesn't care whether or not anyone else here believes or agrees with one, then why should one mention it at all?

Because as often as not, it draws other members into the discussion who may have had similar experiences, but were reluctant to say anything due to concerns of being ridiculed by some of the more aggressive Objective side.

Progress in Audio sound quality is stifled when people don't feel free to report their observations for fear of ridicule by others.

 

We both know of several members here who attack virtually all subjective reports, no matter the subject, or by whom they were posted.

Alex.

 

Hopefully, we can count on people like John Curl, Dan D'Agostino, and Nelson Pass (among others) to have done their due diligence in preparing new products.

 

And these same people aren't adverse to discussing their design philosophies with others, or listening to suggestions from others.

[Isaacc7]

If you think that power cables make a difference to your stereo, I would make sure to let Tektronix know your findings. Their equipment is much, much more sensitive and measures much smaller signals than what is in your system. On top of that their equipment is used in billion dollar production environments. Surely they need to be made aware that their machines are fatally flawed because they do not have bespoke power cables. I mean really, look at this oscilloscope that starts at 182k, it just has a standard IEC connector on the back.

 

DPO70000SX DPO70000SX Scalable Performance Oscilloscope Datasheet | Tektronix

 

Surely it wouldn't kill them to put a $500 power cord on the back of it...

 

Seriously, if there really was a difference between power cables with properly designed equipment the likes of Tektronix would be all over it. You can be sure that they would simply hard wire whatever cable was necessary on a half million dollar piece of equipment. And no, your system's performance is not anywhere near as susceptible to noise as those oscilloscopes.

[sandyk]

And no, your system's performance is not anywhere near as susceptible to noise as those oscilloscopes.

 

Nice try !

However, it's easily demonstrated that most Oscilloscopes aren't sensitive enough to resolve low level noise etc. that can audibly degrade the sound heard through better than average systems. ( low level SMPS rubbish for example)

In fact, you need a well designed very Low Noise Preamplifier ahead of the typical Oscilloscope to view waveforms that previously only looked like a slightly thicker centre trace.

[Jud]

Yes, I realize that, your subtlety was not lost on me. Obviously, lay-persons need to rely on the wisdom of those with the credentials to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is supposed to be the raison-d'etre of magazines like Consumer's Reports, or Stereophile. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line that goal became corrupted so that it is now more about entertainment and commerce than it is about truth. Hopefully, we can count on people like John Curl, Dan D'Agostino, and Nelson Pass (among others) to have done their due diligence in preparing new products.

 

I agree, but find it interesting you refer to the green pen thing as a kind of quasi religion, when Keith Johnson determined how it actually worked. Were you unaware of his work; don't consider him expert, despite the universal admiration of his work with Spectral and Pacific Microsonics; or are there no circumstances under which you would accept that your view that green pen can't have an effect had been falsified? Or is there another alternative I haven't mentioned?

[sandyk]

but find it interesting you refer to the green pen thing as a kind of quasi religion, when Keith Johnson determined how it actually worked.

 

Or more accurately, didn't work, as it increased "Jitter" as seen on the "eye" waveform, IIRC ?

[4est]

A valid point, but I did not look at the link's specs.

Nice try !

However, it's easily demonstrated that most Oscilloscopes aren't sensitive enough to resolve low level noise etc. that can audibly degrade the sound heard through better than average systems. ( low level SMPS rubbish for example)

In fact, you need a well designed very Low Noise Preamplifier ahead of the typical Oscilloscope to view waveforms that previously only looked like a slightly thicker centre trace.

[sandyk]

A valid point, but I did not look at the link's specs.

 

Forrest

I didn't look either, but most CROs appear to have a standard maximum input sensitivity, which is why I said most Oscilloscopes.

To further clarify, if your Preamp is of a high quality, hearing these too low to be resolved waveforms using a typical CRO ,may sometimes be as simple as unplugging a non selected source powered by SMPS that is in Standby Mode , then carefully listening to good material with low level ambience, with and without the other device plugged in.

That's also why I switch the "earth" side of all inputs in my Preamp, but even then, some residual can still be seen using a low noise preamp in front of the CRO unless the non selected device is unplugged.

 

Alex