Upgrade of AC Power Cables

Bernard said:

I have two reservations about blind ABX testing:

1) I think we all agree that when evaluating equipment, including cables, we use music that we like. In ABX testing you have no control over what music is used; some of it may well be stuff that you consider crap. If I were on one of those panels and was played Norah Jones, for example, I would probably say that her whiney voice sounds the same no matter what cable you use. Same for any rock.....noise to me no matter the cable. There is also the stress associated with listening and relistening to short sections and trying to determine if you hear a difference.

2) Those evaluation panels consist of audiophiles, who are notorious for listening at deafening levels, so how good (bad) is their hearing? On other threads people here have mentioned driving their speakers cleanly to 105 dB. Wanna bet their hearing is crap?

I prefer to take my time evaluating stuff by listening to music that I know well on my own system. And, BTW, my hearing is excellent. I had it tested just for my own interest at an audiology clinic a few years ago; the tech doing the testing was clearly amazed at the low levels I could hear.

Click to expand...

Agree fully Bernard. All good points. But the points made by "rpokuls" are also eminently relevant.

More than any reality, I think the following is true:
* If you want/expect to hear a difference, you will
* If you don't want / expect to hear a difference, you won't.

How do we know fact then? We can measure, but we know there are potential problems with that.

Or we can just be pigs in 5hit and enjoy our music

Gordon Gray said:

Dave, I don't know what that is.

Click to expand...

Wow ...........I assume you're not pulling my leg ? For if you are serious then please do some reading .........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

PS: I understand and accept the fact that there are those who would disagree with me on this issue. However, we can and should also accept the premise that we can respectfully disagree.

Click to expand...

while I will 'respect you in the morning' , I will (along with many if not most others) will not understand and or respect anyones opinion that does not comprehend the power of psychoacoustics.

Many, if not most, people who test gear subjectively have more than 1 variable in place which makes the test useless. This is the #1 reason why we see so much variance in subjective opinions in this hobby! It's also why many of us prefer objective testing as an alternative.

To ensure you have just 1 variable (the device under test) you need to:

• Remove Psychological bias. Every audiophile I know has some bias one way or another when it comes to this hobby. Basically, if one expects a component will sound better than another component (for whatever perceived reason) chances are very strong that it will.

• Level match the components being compared. There are scientific studies that support the theory that humans can accurately detect loudness differences of as little as 0.1 dB. Studies also indicate that humans prefer louder sounds. IOW, louder will sound better to you in your test. Even if you are testing gear that, otherwise, perform identically! So, carefully and properly level match your tested components using a volt meter.

• Mitigate time delay. One of the primary faults with typically done subjective testing is us humans have such short (no more than a few seconds) auditory (echoic) memory that it is imperative that you be able to switch between tested components before those few seconds elapse. It is also imperative that when the switching occurs it needs to happen with no audible clue that a switch was made. Note that when the switching occurs it should be really fast, not that the switching back and forth be happening all the time. In fact, the listener can be engaged as long as they want and switch only when they desire.

• Additionally, if you are subjectively testing power amplifiers you must ensure that they both are operating linearly and not clipping and/or have entered into protection mode (if amp has such circuitry).

If you are unable to eliminate ALL of the above variables then your subjective test will fail and will not be conclusive. This is why ABX testing is used; it eliminates variables down to just 1.

If testing speakers, probably best to simply listen for preferences.

OMG! Thank you everyone who is talking based on reality!

I had given up hope that is was possible to have a reality based conversation about a subject like this here.

twich54 said:

while I will 'respect you in the morning' , I will (along with many if not most others) will not understand and or respect anyones opinion that does not comprehend the power of psychoacoustics.

Click to expand...

Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!! That!

amey01 said:

Agree fully Bernard. All good points. But the points made by "rpokuls" are also eminently relevant.

More than any reality, I think the following is true:
* If you want/expect to hear a difference, you will
* If you don't want / expect to hear a difference, you won't.

How do we know fact then? We can measure, but we know there are potential problems with that.

Or we can just be pigs in 5hit and enjoy our music

Click to expand...

Adam, you forgot one condition. Allow me to explain:

When I visited Roberto, I really did not want to hear any difference between his CLX and my SL3 as I cannot afford the CLX; of course, I was going by the fleeting auditory memory of my SL3. And I did take a couple of my own CDs. So, even though I didn't want to hear a difference, I did hear a difference!

As for your last comment.....oink! oink!

Bernard said:

Adam, you forgot one condition. Allow me to explain:

When I visited Roberto, I really did not want to hear any difference between his CLX and my SL3 as I cannot afford the CLX; of course, I was going by the fleeting auditory memory of my SL3. And I did take a couple of my own CDs. So, even though I didn't want to hear a difference, I did hear a difference!

As for your last comment.....oink! oink!

Click to expand...

I see what you getting at. But while it might be a nice fairy-tale that there is no difference between a SL3 and a CLX, I think you knew full well that there would be a difference. The speakers are based on completely different technologies (one is a hybrid, one is not) and have completely different radiating patterns. If nothing more, they were at least in two different rooms - which would have given a significant difference in itself.

amey01 said:

I see what you getting at. But while it might be a nice fairy-tale that there is no difference between a SL3 and a CLX, I think you knew full well that there would be a difference. The speakers are based on completely different technologies (one is a hybrid, one is not) and have completely different radiating patterns. If nothing more, they were at least in two different rooms - which would have given a significant difference in itself.

Click to expand...

Adam, that post was tongue-in-cheek....in a sense. But, you get my drift.

RCHeliGuy said:

OMG! Thank you everyone who is talking based on reality!

I had given up hope that is was possible to have a reality based conversation about a subject like this here.

Click to expand...

I hear you!

I bought my first system in 1989 . I sort of dropped out of the audio world for 25 years or so and have recently re-entered with my purchase of ML Montis and a Hegel amp.

The audio world has really changed. It has gone from "objective" to "subjective".

I saved the audio reviews of my very first amp (Audiolab 8000A) and they are so different from the audio reviews of today. For example, the "Hi-fi News & Record Review" review
of my old Audiolab is totally measurement based. The designer of the amp is interviewed, measurements of the amp are presented, graphs are shown, etc.

What is wild is that there was no description of how the amp sounded with music. It was all just numbers. No albums played!

Looking at "The Absolute Sound" review of my Hegel 25 years later, there are no numbers. Just descriptions of how the amp sounds with different albums.

I think that it is NOT yet possible to quantify an amplifier (or any audio equipment) with just numbers. Two amps with similar numbers will NOT sound the same IMHO. So you have to listen because in my opinion, measurement
techniques are not there. The interplay of electronics, speakers, room and person are too complex.

So I think we need a mixture of numbers and listening.

I just think we have gone to far in the "subjective" direction and need to go back more to "objective". We need both.

It really irritates me when a reviewer writes something like "XYZ amp has a claimed power output of X watts".
Why say claimed???? Measure it!

Output power is a basic parameter and should be verified in any serious review. Instead we get a lot of language more suited to a wine tasting or something.

At then end of the day, this is a technical hobby and if we are serious, we need to approach it that way.

But I could be full of crap. I think I'll just turn on my amp and listen to my Martin Logans lol.

rpokuls said:

But I could be full of crap. I think I'll just turn on my amp and listen to my Martin Logans lol.

Click to expand...

Your second sentence proves conclusively that you are NOT full of crap! Forget the equipment and enjoy the music!

Does Stereophile not still do a mix of measurements and sound. Any time I read it I always ignored the numbers. But, I haven't looked at an audio magazine in years. I prefer to spend my money on wine instead, but don't yet have the language to describe the comparison

Your post made me think of a visit to the store of my ML dealer some years ago; he's a somewhat "colourful" character. He mentioned that a guy from the power company was there, and when he heard a system playing, asked, "How many watts?" The dealer's comment was, "Why the hell does it matter how many watts? How does it sound?"

Bernard said:

Does Stereophile not still do a mix of measurements and sound. Any time I read it I always ignored the numbers. But, I haven't looked at an audio magazine in years. I prefer to spend my money on wine instead, but don't yet have the language to describe the comparison

Click to expand...

Bernard,

"Australian Hi-fi" is the only magazine that I've seen that does a mix of numbers and listening. Nice clear graphs, nice mix of music (vocal, instrumental, etc.)

There may be others. I just haven't seen it. Most just repeat the specs. as reported by the manufacturer.

They did a review of my Hegel amp and found that the damping factor that Hegel claimed as > 1000 was in fact only 80. Doesn't affect me.
I still love my amp anyway, but actually measuring stuff "keeps it real" and keeps the manufacturers honest.

BTW, my favorite activity is listening to my Martin Logans while drinking wine late at night. Goes together very well

Bernard said:

Your post made me think of a visit to the store of my ML dealer some years ago; he's a somewhat "colourful" character. He mentioned that a guy from the power company was there, and when he heard a system playing, asked, "How many watts?" The dealer's comment was, "Why the hell does it matter how many watts? How does it sound?"

Click to expand...

I would say that it is getting harder to do audio comparisons anyway. When I bought my original system in 1989, I lived in Montreal, QC. At that time, there were at least 4 or 5 high quality audio stores downtown, so it was easy to go and listen to stuff. I'm now in Syracuse, NY and the closest store is in Rochester NY 100 km away so even if the dealer would let me take equipment home to audition, it would be a major problem.

I feel like Rip Van Winkle waking up and finding that the world has totally changed, lol.

Bernard is correct, Stereophile (John Atkinson) does a full bench measurement on gear tested.

rpokuls said:

I think that it is NOT yet possible to quantify an amplifier (or any audio equipment) with just numbers. Two amps with similar numbers will NOT sound the same IMHO. So you have to listen because in my opinion, measurement
techniques are not there. The interplay of electronics, speakers, room and person are too complex.

Click to expand...

While we cannot measure music as a concept, we can directly measure the performance of audio electronics, via electrical voltages, and do so to below picosecond precision which far surpasses the capability of the human ear. This is not the case with speakers, however, because there are some things about sound that our brains synthesize that instruments can’t. So, no instrument exists that can directly measure what our speakers produce.

Reliance of objective reviewing is a quick way for a magazine to go bankrupt.

Consider this. An audio reviewer is ultimately faced with answering 1 simple question …. did you like the reviewed piece …. yes or no?

Now, for a subjectivist reviewer this is a very simple process which won’t conflict with his/her subjective belief system.

But pity the poor objectivist reviewer who has to give a yes or no answer on a reviewed piece of audio electronics whose performance distortion measurements are “inaudible”. This is quite the dilemma. Especially if almost all pieces reviewed (sans speakers) are measured to be performing at inaudible levels of distortion ....... as they all typically are given the calibre and quality of pieces reviewed by such reviewers.

What is a conflicted reviewer to do? One very likely thing, in order that he not contribute to the depressed sales of said magazine is, he offers up reasons why no one should rely on just objective measurements alone. It's a perfect out so that a) the business he writes for remains profitable and b) he remains employable.

Part of what has happened since the 80's when I first started to get into audio is that the source quality has improved dramatically and some costs have come WAY WAY WAY down.

I remember Dolby B and C cassettes, and record noise and pops static etc.. Now that all my music is in files the quality starts at 44.1kHz and 16 bits and goes up to 192kHz and 24 bits.

I remember my Mitsubishi HiFi VHS deck. It was $600 back then and now a $30 DVD player surpasses it in every way. I remember the internal TV speakers getting distorted horribly at fairly low volumes.

Now all my TV's ALL have flat speakers built into the screens. Yes they can be overpowered, but they still do much better than even the more expensive internal TV speakers from back then.

At this point there is no mechanical transport mechanism in anything I listen to anymore. Zippo, Gone!

My OPPO Blue Ray player feeds my home theater receiver through a single HDMI cable and for amazing small money my home theater goes to earth shattering levels and sounds very good. Once in a blue moon I actually put a BD in it. However mostly I'm streaming from Cable/Netflix/Hulu and sometimes even YouTube and overall I'm pretty Happy with it.

That is a HUGE difference. People can get to pretty darn good for pretty cheap these days.

I suspect that sound quality will get even better for less money than it costs now. So the low end and mid fi are improving continually.

However many companies are already focusing only on the top 1% so they can keep their margins up so there is a much bigger exponential jump in pricing these days.


What's funny is that if we finally got to the point where cheap gear had amazing quality and everyone had nearly perfect clean audio that they took for granted, would a bunch of people be upset that they didn't have to work for it?

Pneumonic said:

While we cannot measure music as a concept, we can directly measure the performance of audio electronics, via electrical voltages, and do so to below picosecond precision which far surpasses the capability of the human ear. This is not the case with speakers, however, because there are some things about sound that our brains synthesize that instruments can’t. So, no instrument exists that can directly measure what our speakers produce.

Click to expand...

Yeah, agree. I should have been more precise. In theory two amplifiers with identical transfer functions if presented with identical input signals should do exactly the same thing. And transfer functions can indeed be measured with great accuracy. The speaker since it interacts with the room and people, etc is different.

RCHeliGuy said:

Part of what has happened since the 80's when I first started to get into audio is that the source quality has improved dramatically and some costs have come WAY WAY WAY down.

That is a HUGE difference. People can get to pretty darn good for pretty cheap these days.

I suspect that sound quality will get even better for less money than it costs now. So the low end and mid fi are improving continually.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Excellent performing audio has never been cheaper. It's a shame that so few new listeners are hopping on board and taking advantage of said affordability.

rpokuls said:

Yeah, agree. I should have been more precise. In theory two amplifiers with identical transfer functions if presented with identical input signals should do exactly the same thing. And transfer functions can indeed be measured with great accuracy. The speaker since it interacts with the room and people, etc is different.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, audio electronic performance is essentially perfect these days. Much would have to go wrong for it not to be. Speakers will always be imperfect and subject to personal preference which is just fine, AFAIAC.

Pneumonic said:

Indeed. Excellent performing audio has never been cheaper. It's a shame that so few new listeners are hopping on board and taking advantage of said affordability.

Click to expand...

I know a LOT of people with decent Home theater systems.

I've learned not to worry about what other people enjoy as hobbies.

I was a hard core slalom skier and when I got into the sport there were 50 companies building tournament ski boats. Wakeboarding took over and there was a recession causing most of the manufactures to go belly up and only a few manufacturers are left. Three event skiing Slalom, Trick, Jump is all but dead today and now a new tournament skiboat will set you back about $70,000.

I love my RC Helicopters, but that peaked in about 2013,2014 and has been dropping pretty fast since then. People are getting into Quads now that are cheaper and much less challenging. Attendance at IRCHA has been dropping fast. I met Jeff Dunham at IRCHA in 2013 when it was bigger.

I was a serious racquetball player for over a decade and use to go to Court South which "had" 10 courts. They've reclaimed all but two of those courts for other purposes now and I'm out of the sport due to a rotor cuff injury.


There is no point hoping other people share your priorities. I would just be happy the music is easy to come by and very diverse.


One day you may be able to COMPLETELY, bypass your stereo and "jack in" like the matrix to a virtual experience that feels like you are at a concert live. Then all that will be left is the quality of the source.