[ctviggen]

One of the reasons I think some of this doesn't work for me is because I'm a skeptic and because I live in a "rural" area.  I live on 3.5 acres and can barely see my next door neighbors.  There's not a lot of pollution on my power (at least I think -- I have a digital scope with FFT capability and one day will get around to testing the AC power; I think, however, the 60 Hz signal is going to drown out every other signal).  It's also hard for me to turn off my device, climb behind my subwoofer, which is placed on a sub stand/trap, in order to replace a power cord with another cord for the device, then get back into my chair and make some determination as to whether or not the power cord made any difference.  My memory simply isn't that good, unless the difference is startling.  The only way I can do these types of tests is to be able to switch back and forth immediately between two pieces of equipment.  I purchased two sets of Reality cables interconnects for this very reason and I use these to test different pieces of equipment.  For instance, I've compared my ShengYa CDP with my Squeezebox-to-Ack Dack using this type of test (the latter won, though it was a close call).   If I could do the same with power cords, perhaps I'd hear a difference.  When testing CD players or DACs, it takes me at least a few times of switching between the devices in order to determine differences.  I spent at least an hour trying to determine the differences between the ShengYa CDP and the SB/Ack Dack combo.  My comparison of my Proceed PMDT (transport) to Proceed AVP (as DAC) as compared to the SB/Ack Dack was much easier, though.

I also always hear the "your system isn't good enough to hear the differences".  Well, I have a Jeff Rowland #10 ($7,500 MSRP) that runs two VMPS RM40s (all upgrades including TRT caps; somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000 MSRP).  I use a Proceed AVP ($5,500 MSRP) as preamp and can use a Proceed PMDT ($7,500 MSRP) as transport or a modified SB2 (Bolder cables modified; highest mods for digital and analog at the time), and an Ack Dack 2.0 DAC, should I desire to use this.  I use all Bolder Cable interconnects and speaker wire (cryogenically treated speaker wire), although I am using Reality cables on my Ack Dack.  I have two mondo traps (realtraps) in the front corners, two mini traps at the first reflection points, two microtraps to place between the RM40s, one minitrap on the ceiling, two traps in the corners made by Realtraps (I forget the name; apparently they don't make these anymore).  I also have my two Larger subwoofers each on a subtrap from ASC.  I think this system is good enough to hear differences caused by power cables.

[opnly bafld]

I personally don't hear many of the changes others talk about with regard to power cords and other such things.
BUT, I have to disagree with Steven Benders post, because he implies my system UNCHANGED should sound different to me if I do any of the things he says.
It sounds the same as long as the components stay the same.
However, if I change out components I can hear differences.

Lin

[Daygloworange]

Just for the record. I stand corrected. It was in fact a SBT of power cords.

Thanks for pointing that out to me Marbles.

Cheers

[fredgarvin]

Just to highlight something Dayglow said, the appreciation of differances is something that is learned. Just as in fine wines or fine art, and fine wine is a science, it takes some education and experience to appreciate the differances. Once you do, there is no going back. It is then a matter of which subtle differances are important to you.

[Daygloworange]

Great analogy,

I'll even add to that. I think there is a tier level in audio. Once you reach the high end of audio, the differences start to get smaller. But as you are more and more exposed to the high end, your senses become more acute to the finer nuances. I don't spend as much time as I used to in the studio, my senses wouldn't be as keen, but would sharpen quicker in less time.

The wine analogy is a really good one. There are ok wines, then there are good wines. Then there are great wines. But there are differences even with great wines, they don't all taste the same. It doesn't make one better than the other because of the differences. Interestingly, prices are not necessarily indicative of quality in wines, and it appears, in audio as well.

Cheers

[DSK]

Great analogy,

I'll even add to that. I think there is a tier level in audio. Once you reach the high end of audio, the differences start to get smaller. But as you are more and more exposed to the high end, your senses become more acute to the finer nuances. I don't spend as much time as I used to in the studio, my senses wouldn't be as keen, but would sharpen quicker in less time.

The wine analogy is a really good one. There are ok wines, then there are good wines. Then there are great wines. But there are differences even with great wines, they don't all taste the same. It doesn't make one better than the other because of the differences. Interestingly, prices are not necessarily indicative of quality in wines, and it appears, in audio as well.

Cheers

Agreed! However, the differences DO make one better than the other, but BETTER may be different for each listener. 

I find quick swaps useful to quickly highlight differences, but I prefer to spend a longer time (preferably weeks) with each to determine my preference.

The 'Bender post' is interesting and I am not qualified to refute any of the issues he raises. However, as another poster said, it does seem to suggest that our system (without changes) should sound different every few minutes which, in my case at least, it doesn't.    I sometimes notice apparent differences between listening sessions on different days, depending on my mood, stress levels etc., but not every several minutes.

If the issues in that post were all true and occurring frequently, then quick swaps would seem to be flawed as a method of meaningful comparison. However, listening to each of the components for a longer term and over multiple listening sessions should give us a better overall view of each component (even allowing for the frequent changes Bender mentions during the period each component was in the system) and a better perspective of which of the two components we prefer in our system/room/environment over the long term.... IMHO anyway.   

[jules]

Can I add something to Mr. Benders observations with a test anyone can try ...

A little while back, my son and I were testing out electronic pianos. These things have all sorts of tricks and do more or less reasonable imitations of many instruments. I was doing the listening and he was running through the library of sounds. We came to one that I didn't recognize after a few notes. The surprising thing was that when he said "violin" something in my brain just snapped to it instantly and from then on it was a violin, no question.

Another skill of the ear/brain might be this ... I live in the country, surrounded by the bush [forest to those outside Aus.]. At any given moment I'm surrounded by a sea of sound but I'm willing to bet that if I was to set up a microphone beside me and record the same thing my ears receive, it would not pick up that sound of a bull roaring a couple of miles away or that light plane somewhere near the horizon. [This is not a boast about my hearing which is pretty ordinary, but rather a comment on the default skill of the brain-ear combination.]

So the point I'm making here about our hearing, is that a major element of it's usefulness is that it subconsciously interprets sounds, rejects, filters and enhances with the purpose of delivering what we need without having to [or being allowed to] think about it. This is complimentary to Mr. Benders comments in that our hearing/brain has to be able to interpret the same meaning from a given message even if our circumstances are different for all manner of reasons. 

Getting all methodological about testing overlooks some insurmountable problems. Daygloworange has given us his appraisal of a test experience and an inconclusive result. What is often not done in these tests is multiple repetition. If you really want to do a test properly you repeat it 50 times and then do a statistical analysis. If you've ever done a test 50 times you'd no doubt have had the experience that the more you do it, the more difficult it gets. This of course means that your brain/mood changes to the extent that the last thing you are doing is appreciating the message contained in the music [if that's what you're testing]. This in turn means that you are trying to deny the very purpose for which you are listening to music in the first place.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that there's no place for "analytical" listening but what I am saying is that there is no such thing as totally objective listening and that the unknowns and variables added by our mind make all forms of supposedly inviolate analysis into slightly useful but subjective tools.

jules

[Daygloworange]

Well put. I like your observations. I agree, and that's what I feel is the really difficult aspect of subjective testing, the human elemant. We can't be calibrated prior to a listening session.

I would have liked to have done a couple of more rounds myself in the power cord test. But it was late, and we were just chillin', and hanging out, and doing it for fun. Auditioning this stuff is just a small aspect of this hobby for me. Simply enjoying music, is and will always be paramount to me.

Cheers

[LightFire]

....I know in some circumstances is quite difficult to implement those tests (but in the power cord case it should be quite easy)....

Quite easy? Do tell.
Please show me a such switching schema, sbt is fine, that would allow non interrupted comparisons. We wouldn't want to corrupt the validity of the test by having to rely upon aural memory beyond 5 seconds now, would we? So your 'easy' mechanism allows you to switch power cords on a cd player while a track is playing, or paused and then within a few seconds, continued?

Have you ever actually implemented any such switching mechanisms? Have you actually participated in any sort of blind testing? Or is all this palaver a repeat of what you've read on other boards?

Talk is cheap.

TIA,
Paul

If a quick switch is necessary in ABX that would be necessary in a "non-blind" test as well!!

[Occam]

If a quick switch is necessary in ABX that would be necessary in a "non-blind" test as well!!

Exactly!!! (I think?) The problem with any of the discussions as to the validity of any subjective comparative experiment is that -

1. You and other doctrinaire objectivists will inevitably respond - its not a valid test because.....
2. Even you and other objectivists can't figure out how to switch the device under test (DUT), to make the test valid for even a SBT, let alone DBT or ABx.

Now if you and your compatriots can't figure out how to switch where there are no lapses that would compromise the evaluation and no added intermediation in the path, how do you expect us misbegotten, addlebrained subjectivists to do so? So you suggest SBT as an alternative? Thats not going to preclude you from calling the test invalid due to the time lapse between comparisons.
The ONLY component for which its straightforward to configure a valid switching device would be power conditioners, but if, and only if, one has access to those conditioners at the 'wire' level.
So the net result is that your camp simply conducts thought experiments based on, IMO, questionable tautologies and make silly 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' conclusions. At least us wrongheaded objectivists make an attempt at gathering empirical data.
This is specifically why such discussions ABOUT DBT, ABx, etc... are banned in the Lab Circle, its not that I don't believe in it, its that there in no point in discussing it with anybody that doesn't have first hand experience and knowledge. I and everyone else has heard it all before. I also believe this is why the Moderators don't want these discussions, as absolutely no point is served. If you'd like to start a thread in the Lab Circle about how to go about implementing switching devices for subjective/objective comparisons/measurements, that would be great!

FWIW,
Paul

[Dan Banquer]

If a quick switch is necessary in ABX that would be necessary in a "non-blind" test as well!!

Exactly!!! (I think?) The problem with any of the discussions as to the validity of any subjective comparative experiment is that -

1. You and other doctrinaire objectivists will inevitably respond - its not a valid test because.....
2. Even you and other objectivists can't figure out how to switch the device under test (DUT), to make the test valid for even a SBT, let alone DBT or ABx.

Now if you and your compatriots can't figure out how to switch where there are no lapses that would compromise the evaluation and no added intermediation in the path, how do you expect us misbegotten, addlebrained subjectivists to do so? So you suggest SBT as an alternative? Thats not going to preclude you from calling the test invalid due to the time lapse between comparisons.
The ONLY component for which its straightforward to configure a valid switching device would be power conditioners, but if, and only if, one has access to those conditioners at the 'wire' level.
So the net result is that your camp simply conducts thought experiments based on, IMO, questionable tautologies and make silly 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' conclusions. At least us wrongheaded objectivists make an attempt at gathering empirical data.
This is specifically why such discussions ABOUT DBT, ABx, etc... are banned in the Lab Circle, its not that I don't believe in it, its that there in no point in discussing it with anybody that doesn't have first hand experience and knowledge. I and everyone else has heard it all before. I also believe this is why the Moderators don't want these discussions, as absolutely no point is served. If you'd like to start a thread in the Lab Circle about how to go about implementing switching devices for subjective/objective comparisons/measurements, that would be great!

FWIW,
Paul

Great Post! Anytime some of these folks who demand these tests would like to pay us for our time in developing one, and setting up the test, would be very, very, very, APPRECIATED!

                    d.b.

[JohninCR]

It seems like the believers, as usual, are twisting things around in an attempt to support your beliefs.  As objectivists we say without an immediate switching done blindly, YOU (the believers) can't know if the differences you hear are real or only perceived, because audio memory is short and unreliable.  We don't require the immediate switching.  We want immediate switching so you can hear for yourself that there is no difference, since that is our belief, and then the matter will be settled.  Without the immediate switching YOU will likely not be satisfied.  For us to be satisfied that there is such a difference as you believe, we don't care how long you listen or how long it takes to switch.  All we as objectivists want is a properly controlled blind test where the different cables are identified with statistical reliability. 

Without valid results, claiming that power cables definitely make a difference is without foundation.  We even believe that you hear differences.  What you as believers fail to take into accept is that there are a number of valid, scientifically explainable reasons that you hear a difference when, in fact, there is no actual difference.  The primary reason is most likely expectation.  You expect to hear a difference, so you do.

[Marbles]

  All we as objectivists want is a properly controlled blind test

Please describe in detail how you would do this test and the equipment used....be specific.

[LightFire]

If a quick switch is necessary in ABX that would be necessary in a "non-blind" test as well!!

Exactly!!! (I think?) The problem with any of the discussions as to the validity of any subjective comparative experiment is that -

1. You and other doctrinaire objectivists will inevitably respond - its not a valid test because.....
2. Even you and other objectivists can't figure out how to switch the device under test (DUT), to make the test valid for even a SBT, let alone DBT or ABx.

Now if you and your compatriots can't figure out how to switch where there are no lapses that would compromise the evaluation and no added intermediation in the path, how do you expect us misbegotten, addlebrained subjectivists to do so? So you suggest SBT as an alternative? Thats not going to preclude you from calling the test invalid due to the time lapse between comparisons.
The ONLY component for which its straightforward to configure a valid switching device would be power conditioners, but if, and only if, one has access to those conditioners at the 'wire' level.
So the net result is that your camp simply conducts thought experiments based on, IMO, questionable tautologies and make silly 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' conclusions. At least us wrongheaded objectivists make an attempt at gathering empirical data.
This is specifically why such discussions ABOUT DBT, ABx, etc... are banned in the Lab Circle, its not that I don't believe in it, its that there in no point in discussing it with anybody that doesn't have first hand experience and knowledge. I and everyone else has heard it all before. I also believe this is why the Moderators don't want these discussions, as absolutely no point is served. If you'd like to start a thread in the Lab Circle about how to go about implementing switching devices for subjective/objective comparisons/measurements, that would be great!

FWIW,
Paul

Great Post! Anytime some of these folks who demand these tests would like to pay us for our time in developing one, and setting up the test, would be very, very, very, APPRECIATED!

                    d.b.

To setup this specific test (power cords comparison) is very simple:

1) The person taking the test listen to a music sample (CD track) in an audio system powered trough a normal copper power cord. The person ministering the test tells the person that is taking the test what kind of power cord is being used. Sample A.

2) The system is turned off and the power cord is replaced by one made of silver.

3) The person taking the test listen to a music sample (CD track) in an audio system powered trough a silver power cord. The person ministering the test tells the person that is taking the test what kind of power cord is being used. Sample B.

4) The system is turned off and the power cord is switched (or not).

5) The person taking the test listen to a music sample (CD track) in an audio system powered trough an power cord that is unknown to him/her. The person taking the test tells the person ministering the test what kind of power cord is being used. Sample X.

6) The above test is repeated 15 more times. A 100% successful identification means there is an audible difference. The more the test is repeated the more reliable the results are.

7) Three people are necessary to run the test.

I am not demanding anybody to run ABX tests. I am only curious why people that spend quite a lot of money and time to build their own loudspeakers, listening rooms, sound equipment, and also buy sound "solutions" that are exquisite (to say the least), would not spend a little bit of time, sometimes, just to make sure their time, money and efforts are no being wasted.

[DSK]

... The primary reason is most likely expectation.  You expect to hear a difference, so you do.

Not true .... at least.... not for everyone and not all the time.

I will admit that comparisons between some components/cables have left me thinking that I "think" I hear a difference but it is quite small and I'm not confident that I could reliably repeat the results blindfolded.

However, there have been occasions where I absolutely expected a component/cable to sound worse than my current gear but it was substantially better. For example, years ago I was using Synergistic Research AC Master Coupler power cords in my system. They were all the rave back then and cost me a lot of money to import from the US. I had the opportunity to review (without cost) an Eichmann AC cord for several weeks. It was cheaper and even less attractive aesthetically and there had been no reviews or published feedback on it yet as it was a new model. I expected it to make no difference, or to get its ass kicked by the Synergistic. The total opposite occured. There was absolutely no doubt here. It is an overused cliche, I know, but it made the Synergistics sound broken, both immediately and each time I swapped the cables over the few weeks that I had the Eichmanns. I wanted NOT to hear a difference as I wanted NOT to spend any more money, but the difference was so great that I purchased 3 of them.

Another example.... Years ago I was running a BAT tube pre-amp and Plinius SA100/3 power amp. A visiting friend took me around to the home of Hugh Dean (Mr AKSA). At the time I had never heard of AKSA, there were no reviews, and the website showed that it was a supplier of kits to the DIY community. Well, there was no way any kits were going to come remotely near gear from BAT and Plinius. Due to the excellent sound quality I heard that day, we took my BAT pre-amp around to Hugh's the next day and compared it. The AKSA pre-amp stomped the BAT. At a later date, I compared them in my system with the same result. Even later, I compared the AKSA N+ power amp to the Plinius (rated Class A by Stereophile FWIW) in my system with the same result. Even aside from the sound, building DIY components was going to mean replacing my beautiful BAT and Plinius gear with comparatively ugly DIY chassis so I really wanted NOT to hear improved sound from them.

In all of these examples, I had spent no money and therefore didn't feel any need to hear any improvements to justify an expense. And, in all cases, I TOTALLY expected the 'unknown' and 'inexpensive' contenders to be outclassed by their highly praised and more aesthetically beautiful opposition.

[Marbles]

Lightfire.....start by reading this:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

This will give you an idea of the statistics.  No need for 100% accuracy

What does your third person do?  One listens, one switches, 3rd does what?

How much time elapses between the poweroff-switch cables -power on sequence?

------------------------------------------------------

I am not demanding anybody to run ABX tests.

Did you ABX this?

Otherwise it doesn't count.

If you did it is a major breaktrough!!! You may be up for a Nobel Prize!

Seems a little contradictory....

Just curious, are you an English as a first language person?

[Occam]

It seems like the believers, as usual, are twisting things around in an attempt to support your beliefs.  As objectivists we say without an immediate switching done blindly, YOU (the believers) can't know if the differences you hear are real or only perceived, because audio memory is short and unreliable.  We don't require the immediate switching.  We want immediate switching so you can hear for yourself that there is no difference, since that is our belief, and then the matter will be settled.  Without the immediate switching YOU will likely not be satisfied.  For us to be satisfied that there is such a difference as you believe, we don't care how long you listen or how long it takes to switch.  All we as objectivists want is a properly controlled blind test where the different cables are identified with statistical reliability. 

Without valid results, claiming that power cables definitely make a difference is without foundation.  We even believe that you hear differences.  What you as believers fail to take into accept is that there are a number of valid, scientifically explainable reasons that you hear a difference when, in fact, there is no actual difference.  The primary reason is most likely expectation.  You expect to hear a difference, so you do.

Do you mean 'valid results' like this?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=31208.30
where you were shown the flaws in your perfect switch were shown, but nevertheless you maintain your experiment is valid simply 'cause?

or possibly your thread "Edge Diffraction Eliminator Rings"
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=34205.msg304430#msg304430
which should have been titled 'I made round bowl baffles and I like them subjectively', and nary a measurement to be seen, or controlled experiment of any matter. Golly.

Inevitably, I can count on you to bring up this flapdoodle about powercords. The parent thread was about conditioners. I can build a valid switchbox for conditioners, can you?  It was that dang yahoo Carlman who had to bring powercords into this. Yes, I did ask LightFire exactly how he'd switch powercords, but that was solely the response to his saying such switching would be easy. I do believe he may have reconsidered his certainty.

Given your own demonstable proclivities, I think you far more a subjectivist than I. A closeted, self hating subjectivist, but a subjectivist nevertheless.

Me thinks you dost protest too much.....

[DSK]

...What does your third person do?  One listens, one switches, 3rd does what?
...

Passes the beer! 

[LightFire]

...What does your third person do?  One listens, one switches, 3rd does what?
...

Passes the beer! 

One listen, one minister the test, one switches the power cords. That is necessary to completely eliminate the placebo effect. The person that minister the test should not know about the switching as well.

On fourth person needed for the beer.

[JohninCR]

Occam,

I'm sorry that I gave the impression that you were on the other side of the fence, and that I strayed off topic.

Regarding the burn-in and cryo'd speaker wire test, we did try it again with a switch at the other end too after you pointed out the flaw in the original test..  I still had the rig and since the cables were too short to use for anything else, they were untouched since the test.  The results were the same, although we no longer knew which cable was which.

Regarding the salad bowls, I actually looked for something like that down here, but the only ones I found were too expensive and the backside shape wasn't what I wanted anyway, so I built my own.  I'm still doing some construction, but I do plan on lots of measurements.  Any input for doing them properly is welcome as I've never measured before.  I started that thread for discussion purposes, and I learned some things and we did dispell some of the myth surrounding "avoid round baffles at all costs".  At some point it will be resurrected, with more baffle shapes and measurements in hand.

Yes, I probably am more subjective than you, but I believe subjectivity has a proper place as a part of the speaker design process.  A purely scientific approach, I believe, has left some room for improvement in OB speaker design. 

Why the attack?