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

[hall1k]

About a year ago, we had the ole:

"My gold cable sounds better!"
"No it doesn't!"
"Yes it does!"
"ABX it!"
"F--- you!"

Then I left the forums for about a year. Today I come back and here it is like I haven't missed a thing.

Well, gold connectors and such do have their merits, mainly because they don't tarnish very easily and thus form a better connection. But as a conductor, silver is actually much better than gold.

 

[georgestrings]

Well, I did the test.
Seems it's ignored.
So, unsubscribe in a few.

Only ignored by the "believers" - although I didn't see any of them attempting to dispute your findings...


- georgestrings

 

[BassIan]

What gets people's knickers in a knot is being TOLD that their panties are in a wad. It certainly won't get them to listen in earnest, and I can't blame anyone for tuning out someone who alternates between cogent arguments and put-downs, however convincing the former may be.

Telling someone they have an incorrect notion regarding a topic they don't understand isn't disrespectful. Direct? Yes. Honest? Probably. A put-down? No.

This is particularly true when the correct information is directly at hand, and also widely available from other sources.

The only thing missing is the willingness to seek knowledge above base assumption and belief. Until that happens, this "discussion" is at a stalemate.

If you use the tools of music to make your living, educate yourself about how they work. The participants in this thread who have engineering, acoustics, electronics, or otherwise applicable backgrounds have no agenda other than to present correct information. This information is meant to help other forum members make educated decisions about gear and music.

If you don't understand why a hyper-priced power cable cannot affect your amplifier's performance when compared with a quality cheapie, there are many people here willing to explain why. The paradox happens when you are unwilling to do some background in order to understand the explanation. The "Don't use your math/science on me" approach is a complete contradiction of the express interest in an explanation.

If you are truly curious about some of the reasons an expensive power cable can not make a difference, be willing to listen and do some footwork yourself. It's called learning, and it's good for you. Nobody's trying to sell you anything. If anything, we're trying to prevent you from spending money you don't need to spend! How does that benefit us? Not at all, other than having helped a fellow bass player out.

For the record, in a double-blind test, neither the person administering the test nor the test subjects know which of A or B is currently being tested.

Also, the psychological terms "confirmation bias" and "cognitive dissonance" help immensely to explain why someone who has just spend way too much on a cable will firmly believe in its ability to improve sound.

 

[Munjibunga]

Well, I did the test.
Seems it's ignored.
So, unsubscribe in a few.

The people who agree with you already did, and those who don't, still don't. I believe your results, but I don't know if the test was sufficiently rigorous.

 

[Munjibunga]

Telling someone they have an incorrect notion regarding a topic they don't understand isn't disrespectful. Direct? Yes. Honest? Probably. A put-down? No.

This is particularly true when the correct information is directly at hand, and also widely available from other sources.

The only thing missing is the willingness to seek knowledge above base assumption and belief. Until that happens, this "discussion" is at a stalemate.

If you use the tools of music to make your living, educate yourself about how they work. The participants in this thread who have engineering, acoustics, electronics, or otherwise applicable backgrounds have no agenda other than to present correct information. This information is meant to help other forum members make educated decisions about gear and music.

If you don't understand why a hyper-priced power cable cannot affect your amplifier's performance when compared with a quality cheapie, there are many people here willing to explain why. The paradox happens when you are unwilling to do some background in order to understand the explanation. The "Don't use your math/science on me" approach is a complete contradiction of the express interest in an explanation.

If you are truly curious about some of the reasons an expensive power cable can not make a difference, be willing to listen and do some footwork yourself. It's called learning, and it's good for you. Nobody's trying to sell you anything. If anything, we're trying to prevent you from spending money you don't need to spend! How does that benefit us? Not at all, other than having helped a fellow bass player out.

For the record, in a double-blind test, neither the person administering the test nor the test subjects know which of A or B is currently being tested.

Also, the psychological terms "confirmation bias" and "cognitive dissonance" help immensely to explain why someone who has just spend way too much on a cable will firmly believe in its ability to improve sound.

Eloquently stated, and without a single snide innuendo. You are to be congratulated. I still don't think you're going to get any further than us name-callers, though.

 

[BassyBill]

As somebody who, like others here, who enjoys the advantage of falling into both categories of musician and scientist, I agree that BassIan's post is very well stated.

Being a musician will not help you understand how electric power flows through a conductor, how an amplifier works, or why differences in construction between power cables will or will not have any effect on the output of an amplifier. You need science for that - namely physics.

Nor will being a musician help you understand why some people will be genuinely and sincerely convinced that they can hear a difference between two particular cables, when there is no possible physical mechanism by which such a difference could be produced. That also requires some understanding of science - namely psychology.

No offence intended to anyone here. I am simply stating what I believe to be the most parsimonious explanation for this entire phenomenon. Occam's Razor ftw!

EDIT - By the way, I'm sure that the first company to manufacture a power cable genuinely capable of making a definite and indisputable improvement to sound quality would move heaven and Earth to quickly get their product's benefits proved beyond any possible doubt in very public, independently conducted double blind testing. They'd also get all the evidence from that testing out into the audio community as loud and clear as they possibly could, for the obvious huge commercial benefits. This has yet to happen, and I think that fact in itself is just as informative as the outcome of the tests would be if they were carried out.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

. . . not to mention some peer reviewed publication in a high quality, high impact electrical engineering journal!

 

[lomo]

Do you really think there's a chance that the true believers are going to listen in earnest? I'm not seeing any evidence of it. I don't care about being tuned out, either. In fact, that's what people should do if they don't like to hear what I'm saying.

Most won't. One or 2 might. It's the latter I hope to address when I explain something. However, it's never what you say but how you say it. That was my simple point.
Happy thumpin' all

 

[billfitzmaurice]

. . . not to mention some peer reviewed publication in a high quality, high impact electrical engineering journal!

Like the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, an organization which both Bob and myself are members of.
Imagine if, instead of Magic Cable, we were discussing a cure for the common cold. Imagine if a drug company was actively promoting said cure, but said supposed cure had not been proven effective to the satisfaction of the FDA, nor had the results of successful testing been published in the JAMA or Lancet etc. Would you still believe in said cure, and be prepared to obtain it at any cost?
For a great many the answer is a resounding yes. Said 'cures' abound in over the counter drugs that aren't so far removed from the Snake Oil that gave rise to the term. The good news is that if you take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days. OTOH, if you don't take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days.

 

[IvanMike]

The good news is that if you take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days. OTOH, if you don't take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days.

I think the original quote was, "if you take X your cold will go away in about 7 days, If you don't it will take about a week."

God I love Real Science.........

 

[lomo]

For a great many the answer is a resounding yes. Said 'cures' abound in over the counter drugs that aren't so far removed from the Snake Oil that gave rise to the term. The good news is that if you take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days. OTOH, if you don't take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days.

Interestingly, some of the most popular naturopathic remedies HAVE been subjected to proper double blinded, controlled testing. A notable one is echinacea (excuse the spelling), which has proved no more effective than placebo. The worst offender is probably chondroitin sulphate for joints, which also fails to show any significant effect above placebo, but costs a lot and sells like hotcakes, because everyone over 35 has joint pain and wants to believe. Buyer beware.

 

[KJung]

Interestingly, some of the most popular naturopathic remedies HAVE been subjected to proper double blinded, controlled testing. A notable one is echinacea (excuse the spelling), which has proved no more effective than placebo. The worst offender is probably chondroitin sulphate for joints, which also fails to show any significant effect above placebo, but costs a lot and sells like hotcakes, because everyone over 35 has joint pain and wants to believe.

+1 As one of those who also works as a 'scientist' by day, it is amazing to actually look at the clinical trial data regarding drug efficacy. Most who think a drug is shown to be effective in a clinical trial assume that the results would indicate: control 1%, treatment group 90%.

This is far from the case, and often, a 'successful' drug trial result looks more like this: control 35%, treatment 63%.

Think about that... amazing. The simple fact of 'taking a pill' (placebo effect) results in a perceived (and even sometimes a true) impact.

The point being... emotions and external cues (whether that is a sugar pill or a high price tag and fancy packaging) are sometimes real and powerful, but have nothing to do with the performance of the actual product based on chemistry or physics or electrical engineering.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Like the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, an organization which both Bob and myself are members of.
Imagine if, instead of Magic Cable, we were discussing a cure for the common cold. Imagine if a drug company was actively promoting said cure, but said supposed cure had not been proven effective to the satisfaction of the FDA, nor had the results of successful testing been published in the JAMA or Lancet etc. Would you still believe in said cure, and be prepared to obtain it at any cost?
For a great many the answer is a resounding yes. Said 'cures' abound in over the counter drugs that aren't so far removed from the Snake Oil that gave rise to the term. The good news is that if you take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days. OTOH, if you don't take one of those 'cures' your cold will go away in 7 to 10 days.

Maybe it's different in the US (well, I know it is, we have the British Committee on Safety of Medicines and you have the FDA), but over here I've not seen things over the counter which claim to cure the cold, just ones which help alleviate the symptoms.

And yes, a huge proportion of the nutrient industry is based around the placebo effect. Tho, you have to admit, the placebo effect can be pretty damned powerful!

Also, regarding the glucosame & chondroitin situation, there are some results which indicate possible relief in those suffering severe joint pains, tho granted, for the majority of users the difference vs placebo is minimal/statistically irrelevant.

 

[lomo]

Also, regarding the glucosame & chondroitin situation, there are some results which indicate possible relief in those suffering severe joint pains, tho granted, for the majority of users the difference vs placebo is minimal/statistically irrelevant.

As you said, possible. In spite of relatively large trials the evidence is marginal at best and does not show a real benefit for the overwhelming majority of users. The stuff is in every supermarket and drug store in the US and is marketed to everyone who hurts in any joint. Even vets push it, and it is very expensive if taken regularly and in the large doses advocated. In the 80s they tried selling shark cartilage as a cure for cancer, easily finding many who yearned to believe in the absence of evidence or logic. Now they've found another way to profit from all those dead sharks....

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

As you said, possible. In spite of relatively large trials the evidence is marginal at best and does not show a real benefit for the overwhelming majority of users. The stuff is in every supermarket and drug store in the US and is marketed to everyone who hurts in any joint. Even vets push it, and it is very expensive if taken regularly and in the large doses advocated. In the 80s they tried selling shark cartilage as a cure for cancer, easily finding many who yearned to believe in the absence of evidence or logic. Now they've found another way to profit from all those dead sharks....

One of the problems is it's difficult to quantify pain. But I've seen published studies where there have been ~25% more people in the glucosamine & chondroitin group who felt better, compared to the controls. But this was only in the severe cases.

I agree that it is being a tad over used by being everywhere and marketed as working for everyone! (Especially when there are more suitable medications for those that it would actually help!)


mmmmm, shark.

 

[lomo]

mmmmm, shark.

 

[okcrum]

Astonishing, 43 pages.

Former AES + SMPTE member.

Oddly, and Bob might remember this, there was a raging debate in the infancy of digital audio, specifically around the time CDs were introduced.

One group claimed that listening to digital audio made your deltoid muscles weak; the other said "that's poodoo!".

It was just as funny then.

 

[aborgman]

And if power conditioners work, why wouldn't a power cable influence the sound in a similar way if they were constructed to deal with these situations?

Most power conditioners DON'T work.

In fact, most of them are less useful than a regular old MOV based power strip.

 

[aborgman]

+1 As one of those who also works as a 'scientist' by day, it is amazing to actually look at the clinical trial data regarding drug efficacy. Most who think a drug is shown to be effective in a clinical trial assume that the results would indicate: control 1%, treatment group 90%.

This is far from the case, and often, a 'successful' drug trial result looks more like this: control 35%, treatment 63%.

Bingo...

...and from what I remember when I worked for Parke-Davis, that would not only be "successful" but REALLY successful.

 

[IvanMike]

Stay on topic kids, I appreciate the medical analogy, but you KNOW how things spiral out of control here..........

And oh yeah, go empiricism and the scientific process.