Custom Power Cord Question

[Brett A]

If you don't believe in science then you are in an incredibly small minority among civilized people.

It's not that I don't believe in science, I do. It's just that I believe there's more outside of science than there is inside.---It's a limited container. it provides scientific proof, but not absolute proof.

Here's the crux:
I do not believe there is a reality that exists independent from consciousness. And that consciousness, by it's very nature is subjective. (More simply put, all reality-even a reality which includes and honors science- is subjective) The solidity, validity--- in fact the very existence of objects are all products of subjective consciousness. We can test something against another thing and arrive at some conclusion. We can agree upon that conclusion, incorporate it into out common reality. This process is useful and necessary; we do it every moment and need to to survive and thrive. But I say it's limited.
You see, I do believe in science. It's this additional belief that puts me in the "incredibly small minority (of) civilized people".

This is why I was saying earlier that I think that science has already contributed to this conversation what is has to offer, and if it is to go into new territory, then we need to talk about what exists outside of science.

At this point, I could take it or leave it (the conversation); My attachment to my own views is not so strong that I need to argue them, but Id be happy to offer them if you though that'd be fun.

And again, I say give the gawddam cords a try. What have you got to lose besides a belief?

 

[TLS Guy]

It's not that I don't believe in science, I do. It's just that I believe there's more outside of science than there is inside.---It's a limited container. it provides scientific proof, but not absolute proof.

Here's the crux:
I do not believe there is a reality that exists independent from consciousness. And that consciousness, by it's very nature is subjective. (More simply put, all reality-even a reality which includes and honors science- is subjective) The solidity, validity--- in fact the very existence of objects are all products of subjective consciousness. We can test something against another thing and arrive at some conclusion. We can agree upon that conclusion, incorporate it into out common reality. This process is useful and necessary; we do it every moment and need to to survive and thrive. But I say it's limited.
You see, I do believe in science. It's this additional belief that puts me in the "incredibly small minority (of) civilized people".

This is why I was saying earlier that I think that science has already contributed to this conversation what is has to offer, and if it is to go into new territory, then we need to talk about what exists outside of science.

At this point, I could take it or leave it (the conversation); My attachment to my own views is not so strong that I need to argue them, but Id be happy to offer them if you though that'd be fun.

And again, I say give the gawddam cords a try. What have you got to lose besides a belief?

You are really heaping on the cod's wallop now. You have just posted a long winded diatribe to say it is OK to believe in anything. Well it isn't. That is the road to intellectual bankruptcy and chaos.

G.K. Chesterton wrote pages of good stuff refuting your argument. The reason it is to be condemned is that if gives people license to believe anything. He wrote around the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is uncanny how he predicted the modern heresies and the results therefrom. In my view he was a true prophet, and one of his great predictions based on your argument is that people will come to believe anything. I think unfortunately they have.

One of his other great statements was that if argue with a lunatic you will get the worst of it!

Which power cable would you have me change?

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/gallery/2424008_RKGvb#127077552_FpXPB

I think I'll keep my bank balance intact for more sensible projects.

 

[wire]

Lets change Des Moines to Dubuque then and the point is still the same.

Hehe
Your facts are not that straight .

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
There was an interesting article in a recent issue of Stereophile where they measured the performance of the PS2 as a CD player.

Is there a link to those measurements?

It was much less accurate than most, colouring the sound. The reviewer listening to it liked the sound though - the colouring made some recordings sound different when compared to a more accurate player, and in some recordings, it was subjectively better.

A reviewer at Stereophile? Perhaps a BS artist? I am willing to bet he didn't do his comparison under bias controlled conditions. I have not read or heard about any reviewer there who did and do. So, his review as to sound differences is rather unreliable and should have kept it to himself.
But, his readers gobble this up

I propose that some after-market power cords do alter the sound, by (intentionally?) restricting the flow of power. .

Interesting proposal. I'd be interested in the empirical data supporting this proposal

 

[mtrycrafts]

That and the fact that Des Moines Iowa is no where near the Mississippi river.

Why isn't it? Lets change the landscape then

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, I'm going to stick myself out here and tell you that I have spent money on after market AC cords. Because, especially with my CD player, they made a subtle but important improvement in sound. I did not spend $8000, but $80 for the amp (from Signal Cable) and $35 for the CDp (a $110 Audioquest NRG-2 off eBay) With the CD player, a Rotel RDC 1070, it deepened the soundstage (made it more 3D) and improved the bass definition and extension. It also allowed the player to extract just a bit more detail.)

Could you tell us how you think this can be attributed to the power cord?

After all, this would be an interesting characteristics of the cable and component that could very well be empirically measures and would not have to be imagined or speculated about, no?

 

[mtrycrafts]

You should just let people be and decide on their own. If it made an audible difference in his system which he hears then more power to him.

You mean no one should give an explanation, another view, like psychics are frauds, or that homeopathic stuff has nothing in them and is worthless?
Everything out there is of equal value?

 

[Rickster71]

I propose that some after-market power cords do alter the sound, by (intentionally?) restricting the flow of power.

If the cords restricted current flow; they wouldn't meet The IEC International Electrotechnical Commission's international standards.(see post 22)
Also doubtful if they would get U.L. approval either.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... So in this particular thread Brett's post has more merit than yours.

Because why? He made a very subjective input for an area of our senses that is very prone to being fooled. So, how does his has more merit?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I did not start this post to try to start a fight. I was just wondering if it really made any difference because the wire in the wall is typically 12/3 and even if you have dedicated wire to the breaker box if you use an expensive power cord going to the wall plug than in order for any kind of real benefits seems like you would need to spend a crap load of money to get that same kind of wire to the breaker box or your really not gaining anything.

You didn't start a fight This is just another one of those subjects that brings on the usual debates and exchanges. Unavoidable

 

[mtrycrafts]

... In full respect of this knowledge, myself and many others (some of whom, by the way, are rational people of modest means) can attest to hearing a real difference. Enough to spend a few hours pay on at least.....

I surely hope that the time you have spent here know about the vagaries of bias and how it can alter perception
This overrides rationality. Just human nature.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It's not that I don't believe in science, I do. It's just that I believe there's more outside of science than there is inside.---It's a limited container. it provides scientific proof, but not absolute proof.

Absolutes? Is that is what you are after? If not, why even bring it up?

 

[mr-ben]

Is there a link to those measurements?

Sorry, I couldn't find it online. July 2008 issue, page 75.

How about ferrite cores? Could they have any effect?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Sorry, I couldn't find it online. July 2008 issue, page 75.

How about ferrite cores? Could they have any effect?

It could affect some RFI, yes, but audio components do have filter in them already And, those can be added on for next to nothing. Nor would they cause the claimed results.

 

[fmw]

It's not that I don't believe in science, I do. It's just that I believe there's more outside of science than there is inside.---It's a limited container. it provides scientific proof, but not absolute proof.

Here's the crux:
I do not believe there is a reality that exists independent from consciousness. And that consciousness, by it's very nature is subjective. (More simply put, all reality-even a reality which includes and honors science- is subjective) The solidity, validity--- in fact the very existence of objects are all products of subjective consciousness. We can test something against another thing and arrive at some conclusion. We can agree upon that conclusion, incorporate it into out common reality. This process is useful and necessary; we do it every moment and need to to survive and thrive. But I say it's limited.
You see, I do believe in science. It's this additional belief that puts me in the "incredibly small minority (of) civilized people".

This is why I was saying earlier that I think that science has already contributed to this conversation what is has to offer, and if it is to go into new territory, then we need to talk about what exists outside of science.

At this point, I could take it or leave it (the conversation); My attachment to my own views is not so strong that I need to argue them, but Id be happy to offer them if you though that'd be fun.

And again, I say give the gawddam cords a try. What have you got to lose besides a belief?

I assume that what you meant to say is that science can't explain everything and certainly that is true. However, science does explain perceptual hearing and has proven it with peer reviewed, scientifically valid experiments. So your position is the one that is a belief. Science is quite comfortable with its test results.

I've done the bias controlled tests myself. How can you suggest that what I have is a belief rather than a test result? You haven't conducted the tests yourself. Give a little thought to that. I think you'll see the weakness of your argument.

 

[JerryLove]

As much as I risk being redundant, and being on the proverbial band-wagon (I much prefer being the dissenter), I've got to chime in with the majority.

First, there's the obvious: The power cable plugs into the (at best) copper house wire. Upgrade that, and your super-house-wire goes into the very normal wiring in the breaker panel. Upgrade that and it attaches to a very normal wire running to your transformer. When my AC kicks in, my lights dim not because of any internal wiring, but becaccuse of the flow of power for the power-companies transformer. Even if there was actually a difference from cable to cable regarding power, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

For the only slightly less obvious: There's a power supply in whatever device we are talking about. It's jobs include converting current, and providing for load variance. A major portion of this process involved capacters. These function much like a dam/resivour system on a river. They store electricity and release it at a constant rate. Any varience in current that could possibly be attributed to cable quality (within the range of "normal to $8000", I'm not discussing damaged or mis-manufactured cables) would not survive the power supply. It absorbs spikes and handles very short down-surges (which are caused far farther upstream than your power-cable anyway).

Finally there is the example given: a CD player.

Assuming that he's running digital (that the analog signal is being created in the reciever), all the CD player needs to di read bits, translate them in to whatever format digital audio uses, and tansmit the bits. This is something done by computers all the time. There is no subtlety to any process other than the code that does the conversion. Bluntly, no variance in the electrical current will affect the bits coming out (until we reach the point of machine failure to under voltage).

Even if I assume, for the moment, that the electrical current (within norms) matters: the best two steps would be to put on a UPS with power conditioning (pretty much all do), and using a high-quality power supply (again with good conditioning). It would be cheaper as well.

 

[Brett A]

I assume that what you meant to say is that science can't explain everything and certainly that is true. However, science does explain perceptual hearing and has proven it with peer reviewed, scientifically valid experiments. So your position is the one that is a belief. Science is quite comfortable with its test results.

Yes, I'd generally agree and re-assert that science if a belief system.

I've done the bias controlled tests myself. How can you suggest that what I have is a belief rather than a test result?

I'm saying that in the abstract, the test itself is the product of a set of beliefs.

I want to again be really clear, It's not my intent or interest to argue or raise ire. (I even feel that in the context of this forum, my recent points are irrelevant). I just find this scope of contemplation fun engaging, and will either stop when everyone else does or when I get too busy with other things.

In parallel with these views I'm putting out, I am actually quite interested in the science of two channel audio. And not as dismissive as I sometimes come across. I'm quite happy to learn more. I'd even consider hosting someone at my house who'd be willing to help me with some DBTs or whatever. As long as it was done in a friendly, fun spirit--I'll make the coffee.

You are really heaping on the cod's wallop now. You have just posted a long winded diatribe to say it is OK to believe in anything. Well it isn't.

A cod's wallop. I love that.
You miss understand me. More related to my point is that we can believe in anything... It's OKness is a value judgment which is a separate and much more complex consideration. I agree whole-heartedly, it's not OK to believe in just anything (but it is possible).

That is the road to intellectual bankruptcy and chaos.

You're talking to a guy who has nothing to lose.
I'm generally interested in finding out for myself (and discussing) what exists prior to the formation of the very concepts of "chaos" and "bankruptcy"

But now were onto something I wouldn't be surprised will go no further. This is pretty out-there stuff and how it relates to an AC cord any more, I don't really know.

.

 

[Cthulhu]

Science isn't a belief system. As a result of application of the scientific method you may come to hold certain facts as true, but that is not a property of the scientific method. Science holds nothing to be true, merely not to have been proved false yet.

By contrast a belief system is a series of facts you hold to be truths.

This is the annoying thing abou the conflation of evolution and 'belief' by people. Its not a belief, its merely the hypothesis that best fits current evidence. If someone discovers new evidence there will be a new theory - newton -> Einstein.

Notice that Newtonian physics is factually incorrect but we still use it as our model for engineering applications.

Edit: Though to be fair you could argue that science reveals fundamental truths thus informing a system of belief. I disagree, but plenty of people agree with you.

Have established that buying a power cable for 30 bucks because it looks good isn't unreasonable.

 

[audioman00]

Power cables, hmmmm I doubt that... but If they were free, I'd run them. $80 is way too steep for me. I could upgrade something else for that money... Just cleaning up the cables and re-routing them in a more realistic manner helped my system... for real. I think it was just ditching the honkin' old console TV, that thing was huge, now there is just a stereo cabinet there. Maybe it messed around with the room acoustics. i dunno, but my point is: Everything you do seems to make some small difference. It just cannot be avoided with my system, every time something gets moved around in the room especially. I know, I'm nuts

 

[Cthulhu]

Moving large objects around in your room would obviously have an effect on the accoustics of the system