[Ethan Winer]

What precisely is a "null test"?

You didn't get a straight answer yet (that I noticed), so I'll clarify a bit here. But please watch my video linked in the first post of this thread, because it sets up and explains a lot of stuff people here are still scrambling over. One good example is the use of nonsense words like PRaT (or in this case "masking distortion") to describe artifacts or other aspects of sound quality, when we already have standard words that are clear and unambiguous. The video makes many other important points relevant to his discussion, such as the price of my receiver is not necessarily related to its performance.

A null test can give zero output (both sources are identical), or some degree of residual that represents the level of the differences. In practice, it's probably impossible to have a perfect null due to random noise, proximity hum, and similar factors. But if two sources null to -120 dB, or even -80, then they will sound the same. A blind test will confirm that easily enough. I'm 100 percent confident that two identical devices having only different power cords will null as completely as when they have the same power cord. Assuming normal wires of course, not a contrived test where one cord is 30 gauge wire to a 500 watt power amp etc.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

I sold my Mackie 824s a few years ago because they made all of my music sound the same.

I've heard various criticisms of Mackie speakers, but never that one. How well treated acoustically is your room? That's probably the #1 cause of "everything sounds the same," because the room tone dominates.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Based on the description of Ethan's system, it is clear that he is unaware of what we (the audiophile community) are trying to achieve, and the extent to which many of us have achieved it in our homes.

That's so far off the mark I don't know where to begin to refute it.

Ethan, you are doing your company a great disservice by admitting that you do not at all understand what your client base is after, while making your disdain for them perfectly clear.

I have no disdain for anyone, except maybe those who sell expensive power wires knowing full well that they work entirely on placebo effect. My company has thousands of clients, and our list of famous name customers is very impressive IMO. I know exactly what customers are after, which is better sound. We may disagree about how to get there, but to accuse me of being foolish is unwarranted, unfair, and simply wrong. Rather than argue whether Ethan knows what audiophiles want, I'd much rather see specific proof that power cords can change the sound. Not subjective "Even my 90 year old deaf uncle heard it," but hard proof. This is not the first time I've explained that proof is needed, and proof is the thrust of this thread. So far all I've seen are insults and anecdotes. Does anyone who believes power cords matter have any actual proof?

--Ethan

[Steve]

One good example is the use of nonsense words like PRaT (or in this case "masking distortion") to describe artifacts or other aspects of sound quality, when we already have standard words that are clear and unambiguous.

--Ethan

That is the first time I have heard Prat equated to Masking distortion (masking is a valid scientific term, check AES, hearing aid design etc). Distortion is simply the output is different, any deviation from the input.
Since you have mentioned "standard words", I am at a loss as to why you have not named them so we all see?

Prat refers to "rhythm" and "timing" as most call it. Masking distortion refers to covering inner, low level detail//low level spacial information, because of nonlinear frequency response, noise etc.

Cheers.

[JohnR]

OK, thanks for the response.

I think maybe we should just leave it there... thanks all.