Time to go "paper" shopping!

[Patrick82]

So perhaps you could have instead blown a bunch of money on someone else's power cords that are shielded?

I haven't seen any power cords on sale that are properly shielded. All of them have the shield too close to the cable which makes it sound muddy and slow. ERS Paper separated 1cm from the Valhalla made it sound faster with more bass information. It made the bass appear bigger and stronger. The background sounded quieter which revealed a new world of low-level detail.

 

[Wafflesomd]

Huh? Me no understand. You stop using such big words!

Forum members at Audioholics = smart

Forum members at Head-fi = Patrick

 

[emorphien]

I haven't seen any power cords on sale that are properly shielded. All of them have the shield too close to the cable which makes it sound muddy and slow. ERS Paper separated 1cm from the Valhalla made it sound faster with more bass information. It made the bass appear bigger and stronger. The background sounded quieter which revealed a new world of low-level detail.

So a non-signal carrying piece of wire can make things sound "faster?"

 

[pzaur]

I must learn what money sounds like in order to be able to appreciate a change of this magnitude.

Beat me to it!

Mass damping gave a huge improvement in bass. Everything sounded a few dB louder.

Did you measure this with an SPL meter before and after? Or, did you just turn up the bass on the receiver? A "few dB louder" is a strong statement to make and is measurable in real, properly done tests.

Wrapping ERS Paper around the Nordost Valhalla power cord made it sound 10 times more expensive.

Have you tried these yet? It sounds like you've got lots of money to burn. Since the Nordost are only rated at "91% speed of light" these should be better because they are "Time-accurate"

-pat

 

[pzaur]

gave the illusion of faster transients.

Seriously, think before you speak/type.

Definitions of transients on the Web:

* Transients are people who live outdoors in urban centres, often because they cannot support themselves. The popular image is often that of the hobo, or "bum".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transients


Why would you want to have faster transients? That just makes them harder to catch!

(Only one of the definitions seem to be desirable in an audio setting and I believe this would only be improved by a good driver/speaker pairing. In other words - a well designed speaker.)

-pat

 

[Davemcc]

Please tell me this whole thread is a joke. Lie if you have to.

 

[no. 5]

These are the biggest improvements I have ever heard, they make a far greater improvement than a source or amp upgrade.


Dynamics, bass, low-level detail
...
Low-level detail and rear soundstage depth
...
Transient speed and low-level detail
...
Resolution and smoothness
...
Smoothness
...
Heaviness
...

Got anything that improves high-level detail?

 

[emorphien]

Got anything that improves high-level detail?

He's too busy listening to music to nitpick about little things like that.

 

[Patrick82]

Got anything that improves high-level detail?

Yes, that's what Nordost cables do. They are a great match for ERS Paper.

 

[Wafflesomd]

Noise Harvester removes noise from the AC line. It makes the power conditioner work better. It makes it sound full and heavy instead of thin and edgy. 1 Harvester made a huge difference but I didn't like it because everything got too heavy from top to bottom. I had to keep tweaking to find the problem in my system, adding more Harvesters made the warmth problem in my system more apparént, I liked the edgy sound better because it gave the illusion of faster transients. I solved the warmth problem by cutting back on the power conditioners.

So what's the point of a power conditioner even being there if the noise harvester conditions the power.

You need a swift kick in the nuts you don't have.

 

[Patrick82]

Did you measure this with an SPL meter before and after? Or, did you just turn up the bass on the receiver? A "few dB louder" is a strong statement to make and is measurable in real, properly done tests.

I always use the same volume of my system. The difference between 6th and 7th volume step of my DAC1 is about 3dB. The 6th step used to sound 1dB too quiet and the 7th step was 2dB too loud. After I did mass damping with books the 6th step sounded as loud as the 7th step used to sound, but it's not as fatiguing.

If there is more low-level information in the music it sounds fuller, it gives the illusion of louder volume. If all you hear is treble it doesn't sound that loud.

I got the same boost of volume after wrapping my Valkyrja headphone cable in ERS Paper, it made me sick for a few days. After I wrapped my DAC1's Valhalla power cord in ERS Paper the same boost in volume appeared because the dynamics were greater.

Have you tried these yet? It sounds like you've got lots of money to burn. Since the Nordost are only rated at "91% speed of light" these should be better because they are "Time-accurate"

-pat

I don't care about speed of light, it's not where the sound comes from. I have modified my Valhalla cables into slower "speed of light" and I get more low-level detail and speed. I'm using 1 conductor per signal because the original 3 conductors per signal made everything too heavy with lack of low-level detail.
The original Valhalla is only good as a band-aid for a system without ERS Paper or vibration isolation. But the more you tweak the more the added body from Valhalla becomes apparent, and then it needs to be modified thinner to get synergy.

 

[pzaur]

If there is more low-level information in the music it sounds fuller, it gives the illusion of louder volume. If all you hear is treble it doesn't sound that loud.

So, no, you didn't actually perform a real, measurable test that would show the dB increase you claim happened. Instead, you're saying that you can tell what a 1, 2, or 3 dB change sounds like. I find this hard to believe. Make this claim when you can back it up with hard evidence. Until then, it's exactly as you said, an "illusion" of difference. You're expecting to hear a difference so you make it up. Positive or negative.

I don't care about speed of light, it's not where the sound comes from. I'm using 1 conductor per signal because the original 3 conductors per signal made everything too heavy with lack of low-level detail.
The original Valhalla is only good as a band-aid for a system without ERS Paper or vibration isolation. But the more you tweak the more the added body from Valhalla becomes apparent, and then it needs to be modified thinner to get synergy.

You completely contradicted yourself in the opening line with everything else you than state. The power cable is NOT where the sound comes from so how can it create (as an illusion) "more low-level detail and speed" in the sound?

BTW, speed of light is speed of light. You can't have slower speed of light. This measurement is well established and either it is or isn't the speed of light.

What 3 signals are you passing through your power cable?

I have modified my Valhalla cables into slower "speed of light" and I get more low-level detail and speed.

You slowed down your Valhalla cables and now you get more speed?

"Scotty, I need more speed!"
"Capt'n, I've slowed 'er down. She should go faster now!"
"And Capt'n, you do know it's a cable. It doesn't move. The copper can only restrict the flow if it isn't correctly made. Once it's made correctly, the signal only goes so fast."

Honestly, come back to reality. Are you sure Ming isn't after you for the "imex", or is the Collective looking for you?

Resistance is futile.
Ignorance is self-imposed.

-pat

 

[Patrick82]

So what's the point of a power conditioner even being there if the noise harvester conditions the power.

You need a swift kick in the nuts you don't have.

Because the Noise Harvester is tuned to a certain frequency, it doesn't remove all of the noise. It also doesn't fix the clipped sinewave problem, a PS Audio Power Plant re-generator solves that.
I tried to put a filter (Ultimate Outlet) into the path but it just made it sound worse, it sounded dull, heavy and slow, the low-level details were quieter. It was only a good band-aid for brightness.

When I plugged my system into the wall it sounded flat and lifeless, but very smooth because of the ERS Paper, Magix and Valhalla power cords. I could listen for hours without any problems!
When I added Premier Power Plant it sounded brighter and faster with more low-level detail and bass. The improvement in dynamics was almost as big as my ERS Paper and vibration isolation tweaks.

 

[pzaur]

Err, well. The speed of light isn't a constant.

I've always been taught/told it was. Can you elaborate?

-pat

 

[WmAx]

Because the Noise Harvester is tuned to a certain frequency, it doesn't remove all of the noise. It also doesn't fix the clipped sinewave problem, a PS Audio Power Plant re-generator solves that.
I tried to put a filter (Ultimate Outlet) into the path but it just made it sound worse, it sounded dull, heavy and slow, the low-level details were quieter. It was only a good band-aid for brightness.

When I plugged my system into the wall it sounded flat and lifeless, but very smooth because of the ERS Paper, Magix and Valhalla power cords. I could listen for hours without any problems!
When I added Premier Power Plant it sounded brighter and faster with more low-level detail and bass. The improvement in dynamics was almost as big as my ERS Paper and vibration isolation tweaks.

Patrick, this is perhaps the 2nd worst forum that you could choose to join (the 1st worst choice being Hydrogenaudio.org). There is a very low tolerance by many forum members here when it comes to unsubstantiated audiophile-talk (a.k.a. bull feathers). You will not likely be banned, but you will likely be rediculed without mercy, as is the case so far in this thread.

-Chris

 

[emorphien]

I've always been taught/told it was. Can you elaborate?

-pat

The speed of light depends on the medium it is traveling in. The constant as is usually applied is for traveling in a vacuum (and is often used for atmosphere because it is relatively sparse so people don't worry about the difference for basic calculations). But the index of refraction of glass (or other materials) for example specifically depends on the ratio of the speed of light in glass to the speed of light in a vacuum for example. The index of refraction is n=c/v where v is the speed in the material and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. It is always greater than one if the medium isn't a vacuum.

 

[Patrick82]

Ahh your terminology is rather poor. You mean low frequency when you say low-level?

No, with low-level detail I mean low-level detail from top to bottom. If you remove the attack and decay of the sounds it makes it sound edgy and fatiguing, but it doesn't sound loud anymore. If you put the attack and decay back it sounds full and heavy. That is what makes it appear louder.

 

[pzaur]

The speed of light depends on the medium it is traveling in. The constant as is usually applied is for traveling in a vacuum (and is often used for atmosphere because it is relatively sparse so people don't worry about the difference for basic calculations). But the index of refraction of glass (or other materials) for example specifically depends on the ratio of the speed of light in glass to the speed of light in a vacuum for example. The index of refraction is n=c/v where v is the speed in the material and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. It is always greater than one if the medium isn't a vacuum.

Gotcha. I never thought of light traveling through different mediums. I guess my assumption has always been that when the "speed of light" is referenced a vacuum is assumed.
I guess a good analogy would be running the mile on a track and then running it on a sandy beach. Running the mile on a beach is going to take a lot longer.

Thanks for the clarification.

-pat

 

[Adam]

I guess a good analogy would be running the mile on a track and then running it on a sandy beach. Running the mile on a beach is going to take a lot longer.

I'm thinking that would depend on why you're running a mile on the beach.

Oh, wait...sorry. Didn't mean to break up the serious audio science being discussed here.

 

[Patrick82]

Patrick, this is perhaps the 2nd worst forum that you could choose to join (the 1st worst choice being Hydrogenaudio.org). There is a very low tolerance by many forum members here when it comes to unsubstantiated audiophile-talk (a.k.a. bull feathers). You will not likely be banned, but you will likely be rediculed without mercy, as is the case so far in this thread.

-Chris

I already joined Hydrogenaudio and James Randi's skeptic forum. No problems.