A significant consideration here is the $$$/effect ratio. If I'm going to spend that much $$$ for a piece of gear it have better have a significant impact on my tone. Not something that I may only pick out 51% of the time on an A/B test but something that I can identify nearly 100% of the time on an A/B test. Do you think something that causes a subtle enough improvement that you can only pick it out 51% of the time would be worth $175? Plus, do you think anything that makes that subtle of a change would make a rat's a** worth of difference during a gig?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Power Cable for a Bass Amp Question
- Thread starter soularis
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by Bob Lee (QSC)
.......with the participants seemingly feeling it was their own hearing being evaluated instead of the amps, speakers, et al.
This is true. I migh have to add "defending your credibility" to the list of things I'd like to ask a psychologist about.
However that wasn't my point. My point is that our brain activity determines what we are seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling etc. I must be honest and admit I've been a bit sneaky in my earlier post. I typed "the" twice to see if anyone notices. So far no-one has and a very small percentage of people do. I'm just trying to open up the possibility that your brain can fool you quite easily. Unfortunately our ears do whatever that tricky bugger tells them to.
there's a lot of discussion on what goes on in hi-fi shops and suggestion versus audio memory, etc. here.
i used to work in a hi-fi shop, coming from a pro audio background, so i think my experiences are relevant and can add to the discussion. my first day on the floor it was slow, so i decided to go into the main room -- the one with the majority of the speakers and theater receivers we sold -- to listen to a CD with which i considered myself very familiar.
every time i stepped up another speaker, i guess it was better, but the differences didn't seem very big. by the time i got to the most expensive, the music sounded better, no doubt, but not that much better that i couldn't be happy with much cheaper speakers.
then i learned to listen. i started hearing things i had never heard before -- differences in stereo imaging, soundstage depth, minute differences in frequency response and overall level. generally speaking, i was hearing more details in every speaker. i couldn't tell you what key a certain piece of music was in three seconds after listening to it, but i could certainly hear a difference in where the vocals sat on the soundstage between two speakers upon hearing each for about five seconds each.
my ear had been tuned just like a studio or livesound engineer knows what frequency slider to cut on a 1/3 octave graphic EQ by listening to the feedback. now that i'm back in an office setting, not selling and listening every day, i have lost some of that instant differentiation. but now i know it exists.
the reason i bring this up is not to enter the debate over speaker cables, instrument cables, or power cables. even in double blind testing, the data you're collecting is not necessarily reliable data. unless every test subject involved is intimately familiar with the process of critical listening, the best you'll get is what their impression was at that particular moment, isolated in time and having no relevance to anything else they've ever heard or ever will hear. in other words, they're not making any comparisons at all.
i've never had a chance to check out a high-end power cable. while i don't have a fire burning under me to go out and do so -- i don't want to spend retail price on anything audiophile since working in a hi-fi store
-- i also won't discount the possibility that it could change the sound. i have my scientific reasons and if you want to know them, PM me.
the only other though i'd like to add is that sometimes we scientific types forget what is the object and what is the measurement. specs are real, they're important, and they can tell you a great deal about what's happening. but it's the amp that's happening, not the specs. the specs are description of the amp. the fact is that we haven't devised any reliable, musical way to dynamically characterize an amplifier's sonic performance, and until we do, we'll have these debates.
in other words, the metaphorical cart here is the specs. don't let's put the specs before the amplifier's horse.
robb.
i used to work in a hi-fi shop, coming from a pro audio background, so i think my experiences are relevant and can add to the discussion. my first day on the floor it was slow, so i decided to go into the main room -- the one with the majority of the speakers and theater receivers we sold -- to listen to a CD with which i considered myself very familiar.
every time i stepped up another speaker, i guess it was better, but the differences didn't seem very big. by the time i got to the most expensive, the music sounded better, no doubt, but not that much better that i couldn't be happy with much cheaper speakers.
then i learned to listen. i started hearing things i had never heard before -- differences in stereo imaging, soundstage depth, minute differences in frequency response and overall level. generally speaking, i was hearing more details in every speaker. i couldn't tell you what key a certain piece of music was in three seconds after listening to it, but i could certainly hear a difference in where the vocals sat on the soundstage between two speakers upon hearing each for about five seconds each.
my ear had been tuned just like a studio or livesound engineer knows what frequency slider to cut on a 1/3 octave graphic EQ by listening to the feedback. now that i'm back in an office setting, not selling and listening every day, i have lost some of that instant differentiation. but now i know it exists.
the reason i bring this up is not to enter the debate over speaker cables, instrument cables, or power cables. even in double blind testing, the data you're collecting is not necessarily reliable data. unless every test subject involved is intimately familiar with the process of critical listening, the best you'll get is what their impression was at that particular moment, isolated in time and having no relevance to anything else they've ever heard or ever will hear. in other words, they're not making any comparisons at all.
i've never had a chance to check out a high-end power cable. while i don't have a fire burning under me to go out and do so -- i don't want to spend retail price on anything audiophile since working in a hi-fi store
-- i also won't discount the possibility that it could change the sound. i have my scientific reasons and if you want to know them, PM me.the only other though i'd like to add is that sometimes we scientific types forget what is the object and what is the measurement. specs are real, they're important, and they can tell you a great deal about what's happening. but it's the amp that's happening, not the specs. the specs are description of the amp. the fact is that we haven't devised any reliable, musical way to dynamically characterize an amplifier's sonic performance, and until we do, we'll have these debates.
in other words, the metaphorical cart here is the specs. don't let's put the specs before the amplifier's horse.
robb.
Posted by rcz
"the reason i bring this up is not to enter the debate over speaker cables, instrument cables, or power cables. even in double blind testing, the data you're collecting is not necessarily reliable data. unless every test subject involved is intimately familiar with the process of critical listening, the best you'll get is what their impression was at that particular moment, isolated in time and having no relevance to anything else they've ever heard or ever will hear. in other words, they're not making any comparisons at all."
If your ear has to be that well tuned to "hear" the difference than it isn't worth shelling out $175 and most likely won't be noticable in your average gig setting.
"the reason i bring this up is not to enter the debate over speaker cables, instrument cables, or power cables. even in double blind testing, the data you're collecting is not necessarily reliable data. unless every test subject involved is intimately familiar with the process of critical listening, the best you'll get is what their impression was at that particular moment, isolated in time and having no relevance to anything else they've ever heard or ever will hear. in other words, they're not making any comparisons at all."
If your ear has to be that well tuned to "hear" the difference than it isn't worth shelling out $175 and most likely won't be noticable in your average gig setting.
if it makes a difference at all, that is your value decision to make for your rig. after all, people who can afford BMWs still opt for pontiacs -- and i know a lot of people who think that's crazy.
still, i'd argue that most people who play their rigs at many different volumes often enough probably have a tuned enough ear for their rig and its characteristics, that they'd notice all but the most subtle change. and if you don't hear a change in your rig with a new power cable, a new power cable certainly isn't a wise expenditure for you. if you do hear a change, then it's up to your value system to determine if it's a wise expenditure, if the improvement is worth the money.
personally, i think it would be foolish to buy such a cable for a live setting. i wouldn't want to risk such an investment in the upredictable world of live performance. but those are my values, and if it makes a difference, those are the values which dictate the decision.
i'm still waiting for a PM about how these cables might scientifically offer better performance. i mean, there's a reason why there are filters at the front end of a good power supply. it's not as if having a big capacitor farm for high instantaneous current response is some miracle cure-all for HF noise. there are good filters and better filters out there.
even a filter that hypothetically reduces noise by 60dB is improved by something that hypothetically reduces noise by 1dB. you may not notice the difference, or even if you do, you may not care. maybe a dirty, overdriven ampeg sound isn't necessarily enhanced by more clarity. so go on with your life. nobody is offended that people use glockenklang because it's so clean. so why are people so offended by a potentially foolish quest for even more clean sound, even more dynamic range, even more bass response?
robb.
Well, speaking only for myself, I haven't sent a PM because anything about how such cables *might* offer better performance is, to me, valueless. It simply doesn't matter. What matters is whether they actually *do* offer better performance. And proposing rationales, plausible or not, does absolutely nothing to establish whether that's the case.
I say, first show there's a difference--e.g., by blind testing--then offer a rationale. Until we know there's something that needs explaining, suggested explanations aren't worth much.
I spent about an hour tonight talking to a friend who installs hi tech home theater and stereo systems for a living. When I told him about this thread he laughed his ass off! Per him "a 5 foot power cable is going to do jack for the sound". He went on to explain that there are some application where it does make sense but a power cord is not one of them.
i can respect that. however, isn't the debate more about whether the part is actually capable of improving performance than if it actually does? in other words, the debate is not whether a man is flying, but whether man can fly. is it impossible or not? if it isn't possible, then we all pack up and go home. if it is possible, then we decide if it's actually taking place. i'm asserting that it's possible, whether or not it's actually happening here. you're countering that doing so is moot if it isn't happening here.
the reason i use words like might and if is that i have no idea whether this specific power cable does offer better performance. and i have no interest in whether it offers better performance. but i am asserting that a power cable might be capable of offering better performance.
and then we get into the debate of whether it's worth the expense...
i disagree.
aren't specifications also a pre-emptive offering of rationale as to why any particular amplifier might perform better than another? have you any interest in those explanations, plausible or not, before your ear demonstrates superior performance of one amplifier over another?
again, while you argue, "if we see a man who flies, let's then try to find out how," i am arguing, "my research leads me to believe that it is within the realm of possibility, though not necessarily probability, that man can fly, but i have no interest in whether this particular man acutally does fly."
robb.
well, that was my intent -- to show that there can be a big difference. but if you prefer more nuanced terms, how about an audi TT convertible and a nissan 350Z roadster. it is largely a matter of preference. if i recall correctly, the Z offers more HP and maybe more torque, but the TT offers better build quality and the satisfaction of knowing it came first to market by a long shot.
TT -- base price $42,900
350Z -- base price $34,390
hey man, why would anyone sacrifice 30hp and 40 lb.-ft. and then pay $8.5k more? they'd be crazy! there is no way the audi could be a more satisfying drive or ownership experience, and there's no real measure to prove that it could!
the fact is, i'm not a "true believer". i don't know if any particular power cable, exceeding necessity, necessarily can or will affect or improve amplifier performance. i am, however, asserting that it is not scientifically impossible, despite the claims of other EEs (and EE students) around here.
honestly, because i don't have the energy to collect a bunch of animosity over playing devil's advocate. my goal is only to offer a counterpoint to the assertion that it is physically impossible for some wires to improve the performance of an amplifier.
my goal isn't to prove that it's probable, and it isn't to prove that it's valuable. i'm not making some grand intellectual stand here, just simple logic.
if we can agree that power supplies have input filtering, then we agree that there is noise on the line that should be targeted specifically because the bulk supply caps don't do a sufficient job of filtering them. this is because, ostensibly, noise is bad and degrades amplifier performance.
and if we can agree that if no noise were on the line, then we can agree that amplifier performance, in the absence of noise, improves.
if enough improvements in many areas -- both radiated wideband noise susceptibility and conducted common-mode noise rejection, for example -- amounts to a noticeable change in the amplifier's performance, then it is within the realm of possibility that a cable could provide such improvements. whether it is probable, actual, or valuable are all different discussions in which we are much more likely to agree.
i haven't tested this cable. i mean, for all i know, this particular cable may be solid snake oil. but that doesn't mean that every single claim of a better cable is likewise.
as for having "tuned" ears -- call it whatever you want. but my recording engineer friend told me the premier listening room at the store had a major frequency response bump around 250Hz. i attributed that to his ears being better tuned than mine were to hearing specific frequencies. he was understanding more useful information than i was from the same listening experience. i call that "tuned". you can call it whatever you want, but it's not magic and it's not a psychological trick to assert superiority. it's a skill that comes from effort and experience, like any other skill.
robb.
A good amplifier design will be unaffected by normal amounts of noise in the power line. (abnormal being things like lightning strikes).
Amplifier performance is not affected by the presence or absence of noise, for a decent amplifier design. And most noise in power lines does not come from, neither is it somehow filtered out, by a two meter power cable. Noise comes from things like SCR lighting dimmers, or air conditioner motors, or other sources that put hash into the AC power line via their own connection to the power grid. The power cable cannot eliminate this noise. It also does not "pick up" this type of noise, so one power cable instead of another won't have any effect here.
Some EMI/RFI noise does get picked up by the wires; they act as an antenna. There's many feet of wiring in the house, though, so even a shielded power cable isn't going to improve the "antenna effect" of picking up EMI/RFI. Since this noise is easily eliminated by the amp's power supply section, it's not an issue either.
In other words, it's scientifically implausible for a cable to make an improvement in the amp's sound.
Amplifier performance is not affected by the presence or absence of noise, for a decent amplifier design. And most noise in power lines does not come from, neither is it somehow filtered out, by a two meter power cable. Noise comes from things like SCR lighting dimmers, or air conditioner motors, or other sources that put hash into the AC power line via their own connection to the power grid. The power cable cannot eliminate this noise. It also does not "pick up" this type of noise, so one power cable instead of another won't have any effect here.
Some EMI/RFI noise does get picked up by the wires; they act as an antenna. There's many feet of wiring in the house, though, so even a shielded power cable isn't going to improve the "antenna effect" of picking up EMI/RFI. Since this noise is easily eliminated by the amp's power supply section, it's not an issue either.
In other words, it's scientifically implausible for a cable to make an improvement in the amp's sound.
A completely deaf person could have told you in seconds if there was a bump in that room at 250 Hz. All it takes is a frequency spectrum analyser, a mic, and a noise generator. Reliable ones are commonly found on even mediocre home EQ units. You'd think guys working in a fancy hi-fi environment would be hip to that.
Empirical measuring instruments are neat-o, IMO.
No, IMO the debate is primarily about whether they do, not theoretically can. These cables are being sold on the premise that they *do* improve performance, not on the vague possibility that some cable, somewhere, might do something for some amp. Now, many have then argued that these cables will not improve performance because they know of no realistic mechanism by which that is possible. I would call that making a justified scientific presumption on the basis of well-established principles. If you want to argue that those principles are mistaken or incomplete, you need to have something stronger to offer than just, "Well, this *could* happen and maybe have some effect." You need to show there's something happening that those accepted principles cannot fully explain, or else there's no reason at all to take your suggestion seriously. The history of physics in the 20th century, to name just one example, shows that this kind of something does happen in science, so I'm not saying it's impossible by any means. You would just need to show that that kind of something is happening *in this case*.
As for the argument whether a man can fly, there can fairly be said to be a presumption, based on what we currently know, to say that a man cannot fly. Maybe we don't know everything--I'm all about the finiteness of knowledge--but we know a lot, and it all says, AFAIK, that a man can't fly. In other words, the possibility that a man can fly is by no means standing on equal ground with the near, if not total, certainty that he cannot. These aren't competing assertions of roughly equal likelihood, which we can decide between on the basis of relative plausibility. The burden of proof falls squarely on those who would claim a man can fly, and the first step would have to be to demonstrate that a man--some man, any man--actually can fly.
It's not all about the specs, it's about the science we have so far. Again, I believe that science is constantly imperfect and constantly working to be truer--that's what makes it science. But there are quite a lot of things we know well enough to be going along with, until and unless a better explanation comes up. It seems, let's say, cognitively economical that if a phenomenon can be explained in terms of known principles, it should be explained in those terms. What tend to call forth new and different explanations are phenomena that *cannot* be explained in terms of known (or accepted) principles. So if we're not sure we're even dealing with this class of phenomena, potential explanations seem beside the point. Why worry about explaining something that may not even exist? Something that doesn't exist doesn't need explaining.
To me personally, the snake oil explanation for the AC power cables seems far more likely. But I'm awaiting the results of the QSC blind test with interest. If I'm wrong, that will actually be kind of interesting and exciting, because then there'll be the chance to learn something new.
Richard, very good post, I'm impressed. Couldn't have said it better. Everyone: listen to this man!
This is also true for the "parallel" thread about speaker cables.
This is also true for the "parallel" thread about speaker cables.
If a blind test ever takes place,I will be truly surprised. I can assure you that Tara will NEVER sanction such a test. I doubt that they will stand still for Cable Guy to do so either.
Everything that Cable Guy claims can be proven or disproven with a simple recording with the "magic cable" compared to the conventional cable.
This same argument has been done before with signal cables and the results will end up being the same. The very ones who argue the loudest are the ones least qualified to make a meaningful decision. Doesn't it seem odd that every single qualifed expert says the same thing? Would you trust a medical doctors opinion or would you trust a snake oil salesmans opinion in a medical matter?
I will offer anyone who wishes, a standing offer to bet $100.00 that in a blind test the "magic power cord" will prove to be a total ripoff and will not be able to substantiate one single claim that it (Cable Guy)makes.
I'll bet that almost all the people who have been ripped off by this scam also are using a Monster cable. It's just like P.T. Barnum said.......
Everything that Cable Guy claims can be proven or disproven with a simple recording with the "magic cable" compared to the conventional cable.
This same argument has been done before with signal cables and the results will end up being the same. The very ones who argue the loudest are the ones least qualified to make a meaningful decision. Doesn't it seem odd that every single qualifed expert says the same thing? Would you trust a medical doctors opinion or would you trust a snake oil salesmans opinion in a medical matter?
I will offer anyone who wishes, a standing offer to bet $100.00 that in a blind test the "magic power cord" will prove to be a total ripoff and will not be able to substantiate one single claim that it (Cable Guy)makes.
I'll bet that almost all the people who have been ripped off by this scam also are using a Monster cable. It's just like P.T. Barnum said.......
Using a monster cable (or any other good cable) vs some cheap POS is a different story, as its in your signal chain.
Well, I'm pretty unsophisticated about this stuff. I still think television is a miracle, what with sound and pictures floating around in the air, but I know bulls**t when I see it and a $175 power cable is pure bulls**t. I have been laughing myself silly reading this thread. Even after all the laughing, however, I'm nowhere near silly enough to spend $175 on a power cable. As H.L. Mencken once said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Already been hashed to death. Do a search on monster cables. You'll find it interesting.
Very similar sell for the same snake oil.
pbd
Commercial User
This is from the Tara Labs site. Very curious, when I tried to link to specifics I got an error message. What's your take on this everyone?
"The One cables all employ Rectangular Solid Core designs which have been refined to deliver a musical signal that is even more neutral, transparent , and natural than before. The conductors themselves are RSC Generation 2 conductors made of Consonant AlloyTM, a proprietary alloy from TARA Labs which is more conductive than the purest form of copper alone.
... RSC conductors are polished in-line, before the primary insulation is applied, giving them a microscopically smooth, mirror-like finish. This process enables the insulation to adhere evenly. Otherwise, gaps or tiny air spaces between the insulation and the conductor could create distortion of high frequencies due to different dielectric hysteresis of air vs. plastic materials.
In addition to Consonant Alloy, The One cables employ a number of other proprietary materials, each chosen for their specific sonic qualities."
&
"In most cables, insulation materials have seemingly little effect on sound quality. Because most cable designs are inherently flawed to begin with, noisy and distortive, the subtler effects of dielectric absorption may not be noticed. In cables offering superb resolution such as The One, insulating materials have a more significant effect on the sound because more is revealed in the signal.
The insulation used in The One is another proprietary technology from TARA Labs. It consists of chemically stabilized Polyethylene (Aero-PETM) which has been modified by the addition of vacuum-filled, microscopic glass spheres. These spheres, created in a vacuum chamber, provide a dielectric environment which is optimal due to its lack of dielectric absorption."
Invalid Link Removed
"The One cables all employ Rectangular Solid Core designs which have been refined to deliver a musical signal that is even more neutral, transparent , and natural than before. The conductors themselves are RSC Generation 2 conductors made of Consonant AlloyTM, a proprietary alloy from TARA Labs which is more conductive than the purest form of copper alone.
... RSC conductors are polished in-line, before the primary insulation is applied, giving them a microscopically smooth, mirror-like finish. This process enables the insulation to adhere evenly. Otherwise, gaps or tiny air spaces between the insulation and the conductor could create distortion of high frequencies due to different dielectric hysteresis of air vs. plastic materials.
In addition to Consonant Alloy, The One cables employ a number of other proprietary materials, each chosen for their specific sonic qualities."
&
"In most cables, insulation materials have seemingly little effect on sound quality. Because most cable designs are inherently flawed to begin with, noisy and distortive, the subtler effects of dielectric absorption may not be noticed. In cables offering superb resolution such as The One, insulating materials have a more significant effect on the sound because more is revealed in the signal.
The insulation used in The One is another proprietary technology from TARA Labs. It consists of chemically stabilized Polyethylene (Aero-PETM) which has been modified by the addition of vacuum-filled, microscopic glass spheres. These spheres, created in a vacuum chamber, provide a dielectric environment which is optimal due to its lack of dielectric absorption."
Invalid Link Removed
pbd
Commercial User
GooseYard, I loved your post on your new wall outlets. I will post it above my work space to chuckle at while I'm soldering cables.
"The One cables all employ Rectangular Solid Core designs which have been refined to deliver a musical signal that is even more neutral, transparent , and natural than before. The conductors themselves are RSC Generation 2 conductors made of Consonant AlloyTM, a proprietary alloy from TARA Labs which is more conductive than the purest form of copper alone.
... RSC conductors are polished in-line, before the primary insulation is applied, giving them a microscopically smooth, mirror-like finish. This process enables the insulation to adhere evenly. Otherwise, gaps or tiny air spaces between the insulation and the conductor could create distortion of high frequencies due to different dielectric hysteresis of air vs. plastic materials.
In addition to Consonant Alloy, The One cables employ a number of other proprietary materials, each chosen for their specific sonic qualities."
&
"In most cables, insulation materials have seemingly little effect on sound quality. Because most cable designs are inherently flawed to begin with, noisy and distortive, the subtler effects of dielectric absorption may not be noticed. In cables offering superb resolution such as The One, insulating materials have a more significant effect on the sound because more is revealed in the signal.
The insulation used in The One is another proprietary technology from TARA Labs. It consists of chemically stabilized Polyethylene (Aero-PETM) which has been modified by the addition of vacuum-filled, microscopic glass spheres. These spheres, created in a vacuum chamber, provide a dielectric environment which is optimal due to its lack of dielectric absorption."
*sniff, sniff*
Yep, smells like bullsh*t
*poke, poke*
Ewwww, sure feels like bullsh*t
*notices bull standing nearby*
Humm, yep, probably is bullsh*t!
Still the funniest thread I have ever read on TB.
... RSC conductors are polished in-line, before the primary insulation is applied, giving them a microscopically smooth, mirror-like finish. This process enables the insulation to adhere evenly. Otherwise, gaps or tiny air spaces between the insulation and the conductor could create distortion of high frequencies due to different dielectric hysteresis of air vs. plastic materials.
In addition to Consonant Alloy, The One cables employ a number of other proprietary materials, each chosen for their specific sonic qualities."
&
"In most cables, insulation materials have seemingly little effect on sound quality. Because most cable designs are inherently flawed to begin with, noisy and distortive, the subtler effects of dielectric absorption may not be noticed. In cables offering superb resolution such as The One, insulating materials have a more significant effect on the sound because more is revealed in the signal.
The insulation used in The One is another proprietary technology from TARA Labs. It consists of chemically stabilized Polyethylene (Aero-PETM) which has been modified by the addition of vacuum-filled, microscopic glass spheres. These spheres, created in a vacuum chamber, provide a dielectric environment which is optimal due to its lack of dielectric absorption."
*sniff, sniff*
Yep, smells like bullsh*t
*poke, poke*
Ewwww, sure feels like bullsh*t
*notices bull standing nearby*
Humm, yep, probably is bullsh*t!
Still the funniest thread I have ever read on TB.
- Status
