Only $2,000 to improve your amp's performance

[guy n. cognito]

Yes... that is why I identified it as an unofficial test. Initial observations and nothing more. The ears in that studio, however, were extremely familiar with both the material and the equipment being used and several have well earned reputations for knowing what they are talking about.

Thanks for methodology insight. I will be sure to apply it to Friday's test.

Cheers!

What studio? Who were the people involved? What are their credentials?

 

[guy n. cognito]

I do find it interesting that this simple subjective test reveled some result. Warrants further investigation.

Simple psychology. Try it sometime: tell your bandmates you just bought a high end cord and you want to try it out. Ask them to turn their backs where they can't see the cords. Let them play on cord "a", then mute the amp and switch to cord "b". Do it several times. Here's the trick....there is no cord "b". When you plug in "b", walk to where the player can see you. Smile, act astonished and pleased with the results. Give them a look that says "you hear it, too???" Guess what? They'll hear it. I've done it before, many times. Actually, I learned it in college. No, not any sort of audio class, but rather a psychology class.

It's not a study in transmitting electrons, it's a study in human psychology. People want to please other people. If you believe something, they will want to believe it too. This especially true in the audiophile world, where NOT hearing the difference can get you banned as having "tin ears."

 

[B-string]

Well I certainly don't want to be (in a veiled or any other way) inferred as a shill. This is not a paper being developed for review by any scientific board or entity. I am very well educated in this field and if the difference can be quantified (after this informal test) I want to know how. Keep in mind when the telegraph was developed if anyone for saw a TV, much less a cell phone they would be burned at the stake. I don't see a conspiracy at every corner, but I don't buy into marketing either. Just want to see how it plays out.
I did your suggested "cord test" with a Monster instrument (guitar cable). Yes they never knew I didn't change cables but heard a difference, when I did change cables 75% of the time they though my 10 year old cable (not a monster cable) was the better sounding one.

 

[Limeman]

What studio? Who were the people involved? What are their credentials?

Extremely well designed studio. Busy players in my area with one cat (friend who runs studio) who is first call with DigiDesign for beta testing on system upgrades, plug-ins, etc. Their ears are top-notch and they absolutely know their craft.

 

[JimmyM]

well you own a vt so i'm convinced you know what you're talking about but still, i'm very skeptical.

 

[Munjibunga]

What studio? Who were the people involved? What are their credentials?

Apparently no one who wants to risk his reputation by having his name mentioned in association with the cockamamie, so called, "unofficial test." The fact that this sort of test is even mentioned prior to the "true believers'" test on Friday is a strong indication of how reliable the final results will be. It would be ludicrous to think that tests performed by someone with such a strong predisposition would have any validity at all.

 

[johnk_10]

in our studio, we have a HUGE power 200lb transformer wired directly into our breaker box to isolate us from the grid. from there it goes to three tripplite regulators. one for our rack gear, the second on for our 3M M79's and the the last one goes to our Lambda 48v,24v 18v 15v and 5v power supplies that supply power to the Amek board. so i am of the group that really doesn't think an AC cable is going to do much for a system that is already set up to be what i think is the best that it can be.

here's pic of about half of the system:

but if it works for you, that's great.

 

[Limeman]

...i am of the group that really doesn't think an AC cable is going to do much for a system that is already set up to be what i think is the best that it can be... but if it works for you, that's great.

Not sure what it does. All I know is the Myer with the PowerCord sounded different. In my mind that alone justifies trying to run at least a reasonable blind a/b test. I wish someone with a scope and the knowledge to use it would run some tests on this to see what, if anything, is going on.

 

[SMASH]

Extremely well designed studio. Busy players in my area with one cat (friend who runs studio) who is first call with DigiDesign for beta testing on system upgrades, plug-ins, etc. Their ears are top-notch and they absolutely know their craft.

They may know their craft, but if they're pretending that is a listening test, even an "unofficial test", then I'm officially telling you they know nothing about listening tests.

It is however, an excellent psychology test. And that kind of "test" is exactly what the hype peddlers are counting on - people convincing each other they hear something. "Look, it's fatter, can't you hear the difference ?! Mr. Endorser can !!! Oh, now you hear it too, eh?"

"Expanded the stereo stage" with just one speaker plugged into a magic power cord in a fancy studio that presumably would already have good clean power to start with? Such an obvious difference, and yet companies like ESP can't offer one single shred of testing results.

I sure hope your "official" test is at least a weeeee bit more credible. And don't forget Randi's $1 million prize. Seems like it's as good as yours.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Extremely well designed studio. Busy players in my area with one cat (friend who runs studio) who is first call with DigiDesign for beta testing on system upgrades, plug-ins, etc. Their ears are top-notch and they absolutely know their craft.

Name the studio. Name the "cat". Name the other golden ears that "hear the difference." If you're going to hold them up as experts, you should do us the courtesy of naming them. Anything else is "intellectual dishonesty," right?

Unnamed golden ears, completely dishonest testing criteria and a test leader who is proven to want to believe the hype, regardless of the lack of science behind it. Really doesn't do much for me.

If audiophiles were eskimoes, they would be the biggest buyers of ice in the country.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Apparently no one who wants to risk his reputation by having his name mentioned in association with the cockamamie, so called, "unofficial test." The fact that this sort of test is even mentioned prior to the "true believers'" test on Friday is a strong indication of how reliable the final results will be. It would be ludicrous to think that tests performed by someone with such a strong predisposition would have any validity at all.

Agreed.

 

[lomo]

I did your suggested "cord test" with a Monster instrument (guitar cable). Yes they never knew I didn't change cables but heard a difference, when I did change cables 75% of the time they though my 10 year old cable (not a monster cable) was the better sounding one.

There are some cables that actually attenuate some (usually high) frequencies. They sound different, but actually filter out some information like a fixed eq. Not better, but yes, different. Once "different" to the ears has been ascertained, then a scope can elucidate why......for that matter, the scope can also show a difference if it's there better than any ear.

 

[JimmyM]

There are some cables that actually attenuate some (usually high) frequencies. They sound different, but actually filter out some information like a fixed eq. Not better, but yes, different. Once "different" to the ears has been ascertained, then a scope can elucidate why......for that matter, the scope can also show a difference if it's there better than any ear.

honestly, after what limeman said about it, i'm pretty convinced i would not like it, even if it's proven to work. the things he said it did are things i have no interest in.

 

[Lukejt]

Apples and oranges, instrument and power cables.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Name the studio. Name the "cat". Name the other golden ears that "hear the difference." If you're going to hold them up as experts, you should do us the courtesy of naming them. Anything else is "intellectual dishonesty," right?

"Intellectual dishonesty" has a definition, and this would not be an example of that.

Referring to an unnamed studio and unnamed expert would be called "anecdotal evidence" or "unreliable" or "unpersuasive". Intellectual dishonesty is something else.

 

[Jason P Bass]

And to all the people talking about listening tests, it boils down to this:

If you conduct a poorly designed listening test, it will demonstrate the placebo effect.

If you want to actually demonstrate the measurable effect of these power cables, the burden is on you to present a test which is not a demonstration of the placebo effect.

In doing a double blind test, any time you 1) cut corners, 2) approximate the method, 3) assume that some aspect doesn't matter, or 4) do anything except a double blind test by the book, then the study is wide open to attack and invalidation.

All of this conversation about the testing procedure has muddied the waters because we're now faced with two controversies. The first is "Do these power cable result in an audible difference?" while the second is "Are we conducting a double blind test or are we conducting a placebo test?"

Before any results whatsoever can be used for anything, the tester must demonstrate that s/he did not conduct a placebo test.

Good luck and game on!

 

[guy n. cognito]

"Intellectual dishonesty" has a definition, and this would not be an example of that.

Referring to an unnamed studio and unnamed expert would be called "anecdotal evidence" or "unreliable" or "unpersuasive". Intellectual dishonesty is something else.

Yes, thank you, I was quite aware of my misuse of the word. Shall I define sarcasm for you?

 

[aborgman]

I disagree. It would be easy, albeit time consuming, to evaluate. All that's needed is a recorded loop, amp, cab, 2 people who are prepared to do what is necessary and paper/pens. If it is done rigorously and repeated enough times then the results should be trusted. Then it can be repeated to see if the result is reproduced. It is simple and logical, but inconvenient.

Even easier than that.

Use regular IEC cord. Record amp with measurement mic.

Use SuperCord. Record amp with measurement mic.

Plug the two clips into PCABX. Run tests.

 

[Jason P Bass]

Yes, thank you, I was quite aware of my misuse of the word. Shall I define sarcasm for you?

Yes please. I've never heard of sarcasm.





Sorry that I didn't catch yours. There's so much back-and-forth in this thread that it's hard to tell who's being sincere and who's being funny.

 

[onlyclave]

http://gizmodo.com/5213042/why-we-need-audiophiles
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

You should read all three articles.