Anyone ever change there stock IEC power cords? (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Oh I agree, Mike.

The difference, of course, is that some of us are quite willing to take steps to eliminate the bias.

Others are absolutely loathe to do so.

 

[Phil A]

After market cords can make a nice difference in the sound/performance. Like any other connection, the quality of the connector (e.g. interconnect) is in most cases more than the wire. Many of the better cords use Hubbell, Marinco, Wattgate, Schurter or other connectors. A good Hubbell plug can be purchases for about $13 and a good quality IEC connector can be from $6-$25 bucks. Most of the connectors have screw connections which does not take a lot of skill to use. It is just hooking 3 pieces of wire (and sometimes a drain wire to the ground) to the corresponding terminals on the connects. It is a relatively easy task to make one and test the connections. The cords that come with most gear are generic stock cords that the equipment manufactures bulk purchase and are not significantly different from what comes with a computer CPU for example. The manufacturer is trying to bring something to the market at a price point whether that is $300 or $3,000. The manufacturer is not going to buy more materials, labor and the facilities to make things that will make the product appear less attractive to the potential buyer. With little effort and minimal skill and tools, one can make a better cord for between $20 and $40.

 

[Mike Knapp]

The difference, of course, is that some of us are quite willing to take steps to eliminate the bias.

I must of course laugh when I see this as we both know that it is quite impossible to remove the bias from your side of the argument.
A DBT (which will supposedly remove the bias from my side) will do nothing for your camp. You can still say that you "cant hear any difference" no matter if you can or cannot actually hear it. Your claim cannot possibly be disproved.
So please forgive my guffaw.
Mike

 

[RobertR]

A DBT (which will supposedly remove the bias from my side) will do nothing for your camp. You can still say that you "cant hear any difference" no matter if you can or cannot actually hear it

This assumes that objectivists are inherently dishonest about hearing differences or are disinterested in *genuine* improvements in sound. Quite the contrary, we do plenty of things that genuinely improve sound (room treatments, better speakers, etc.). We are simply more interested in *real* improvements than you are.
Of course, doing nothing to eliminate bias simply allows your side to wallow in it, thereby eliminating any possibility of determining any real, *objective* improvement (at least you're honest enough to admit the existence of bias).
Kind of like the difference between using tested antibiotics and blood tests to treat a fever instead of relying purely on how a patient "feels".

 

[Saurav]

This assumes that objectivists are inherently dishonest about hearing differences or are disinterested in *genuine* improvements in sound.

No it doesn't. It assumes that the 'objectivists' have a pre-conceived bias towards not hearing a difference, just as you assume that the 'subjectivists' have a pre-conceived bias towards hearing a difference. To me, both these assumptions are perfectly valid (or not).

For instance, if you set up a DBT where the test subjects know that it's speaker wire being compared, I'm pretty sure that that information right there renders it an invalid test for an objectivist, because he has the pre-conceived notion that speaker cables do not sound different, based on the fact that all previous DBTs have failed to uncover any difference. So, his bias is fully present in the test.

I guess the only way to eliminate an 'objectivist's bias (or anyone's bias, for that matter) would be to blindfold him and tell him only that he's listening to two different systems, and provide no further information about what the differences between the systems are. Physically they could be the same system with one component switched, but to the listener, they're just two systems, period. That way, his ego would ensure that he is unbiased, becaue (a) he wouldn't want to declare "no difference" and find that everyone else in the room heard a difference and he was listening to completely different speakers, and (b) he wouldn't want to guess his way to a possibly consistent difference and find out that the only thing changed was speaker cable. Biases are after all completely within one's head.

Of course, there are practical limitations to running such a test, but it's not impossible.

 

[Mike Voigt]

I think I'll stick with my biases... Diana Krall, Mozart, even perhaps some Van Halen.
You guys can keep the hip-hop, rap and other junk.
How's that for bias?
No one can escape their biases - whatever they are. Because bias is defined as much by sensory organs as by perception as by the perception of the perception.
In fact, Saurav, I think the only way to really exclude any bias would be by telling a test group that they are listening to a sound-producing entity (could be a sequence of fiddles) and to attempt to discern any changes between individual test phases. Then do whatever you want to.
Furthermore, it is possible one of the best discriminants against bias is full-blown mislead. Tell them you want to check out speakers for any changes - then go fiddle with the cables...! Apart from a few pissed-off subjects (who do NOT like to be misled - it might make them confronts their biases, you know )
I would include a couple receiver swaps in there, just to be sure!
But then again I have been known to be a right bastard
Mike

 

[Mike Voigt]

And now, back to our regular programming!
Hank, I have, actually, and quite by accident. Several of the pieces I have also use standard IEC plugs and cords, and I happened to put another, much beefier one in there. Made no difference, but in truth, we are talking about a 2x80W Acurus amp where the line size changed maybe one step. Not exactly the most, ahem, discriminating setup.
Mike

 

[Mike Knapp]

Suarav.....abso-frickin-lutely!

Mike

 

[RobertR]

Interesting setup, Saurav. But it reiterates my point--that objectivists are willing to engage in such bias-eliminating tests. Subjectivists AREN'T (you and Mike have done nothing to show how a standard DBT is ineffective at eliminating bias for a wire believer such as Mike, and you can BET that Mike STILL would want nothing to do with such a test). THAT's the difference.
Also, such a test as you describe reinforces how bias can influence what one hears. People have been told they are listening to a different system when they are in fact listening to the exact same thing, and theyhave reported differences, thereby proving that the only difference is in their heads.
I'll say it again: objectivists are willing to take steps to eliminate this problem. Subjectivists AREN'T. Indeed, with the very rare exception of Mike, they deny that it even exists.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Since Suarav and I have both demonstrated that it is impossible to eliminate bias from either camp it would seem that the actual effort to do so would not only be fruitless but would demonstrate a high degree of obstanance and an unhealthy desire to waste ones time.

Sort of like building a perpetual motion machine....yes? It may be fun trying but you know you cant do it before hand so why not spend your time less foolishly.

Mike

 

[RobertR]

Since Suarav and I have both demonstrated that it is impossible to eliminate bias from either camp

You've done no such thing. Neither of you have shown any basis for why a standard DBT would not eliminate bias for a wire believer. Furthermore, by not only acknowledging, but positively extolling the fact of the pervasiveness of bias, you strengthen the objectivist case for its influence AND the importance of eliminating it.

Unfortunately, it still won't stop you from claiming differences that are perceived only due to that bias, instead of having any true objective basis.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Perhaps you can explain to me why a subjectivist should be held to more rigid standards than an objectivist?

If bias cannot be eliminated in such a way as to make a subjectivist's test accurate, and we must rely on the "honesty and integrity" of the objectivist to tell us if he really did hear a difference or not, why would you not just accept the honesty and integrity of a subjectivist when he says he can hear something? Are we less honest? We have already determined that we have no more bias than an objectivist.

By asking us to prove something to standards that you yourself could not possibly meet is insulting. Do what I say not what I do? Gimme a break.

Mike

 

[RobertR]

Mike:
Your post is replete with emotional buzzwords that have very little to do with the scientific issue at hand. You equate "bias" with "lack of honesty", "lack of integrity", etc., and go on about "insults".
That's a strawman. Bias is a phenomenon that even someone with great honesty and integrity is subject to. That is a fact. By saying "we have no more bias than an objectivist", you acknowledge that you HAVE that bias. The DBT is designed to eliminate that bias, NOT impugn your integrity or honesty. It's that simple, and you've done NOTHING to show why a DBT wouldn't eliminate your bias. Complaining about MY biases sounds like an attempt to divert attention from that fact, as well as divert attention from the fact that you refuse to do anything to eliminate your source of bias.
The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that there is no basis for wire claims. It isn't supported by metallurgy OR electrical engineering OR listening tests designed to eliminate bias (in other words, the objective scientific evidence supports my "bias"). Therefore, wire claims constitute an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Subjectivists haven't provided it, NOR have they shown any counter evidence against the influence of bias. Indeed, you CELEBRATE bias.

 

[Mike Knapp]

My point is why should I have to prove anything in a test when you yourself cannot prove your point using the same test?

Mike

 

[RobertR]

I have the following to prove my point:
Objective metallurgy
Objective electrical engineering
results of listening tests that eliminate bias
You have the following to prove yours:
Bias-filled (which you acknowledge) listening tests.
And instead of wanting to address your bias problem, you want to focus on my bias, notwithstanding that my position is supported by objective science.

 

[Saurav]

OK, I think this is where Mike and I sort of diverge in our beliefs. Anyway...

I'll say it again: objectivists are willing to take steps to eliminate this problem.

Yup, objectivists are willing to take steps to eliminate the subjectivist's problems, not their own. I agree

 

[Saurav]

results of listening tests that eliminate bias

Now that's a valid argument. All listening tests which eliminate type A bias have failed to turn up any difference. Does that prove that no difference can be heard? No, it doesn't. Does that hint that it is very likely that no difference can be heard? Yes it does. Is that enough for you to conclude that you don't need to mess with speaker cables? Yes, it appears it is. Is that enough for a subjectivist to conclude the same thing? No, it isn't. Is either side wrong? No, they aren't.
All I'm trying to say is, as long as you're talking about science, science hasn't proved anything. At least, not in the way the word "proof" is understood in the scientific community. Also, an electrical engineer's opinion on audiological issues is just that, an opinion. It's not proof.
So, what it boils down to is, there is no proof. Either way. There is a strong indication that you are correct, and all these differences are inside the listener's head. In fact, a very strong indication. Which brings it down to a matter of choice, do you leave it at that, or do you go beyond. Some choose one way, some choose another. Neither is more right or more wrong than the other, and it's a completely personal choice anyway.
All IMO, of course.

 

[RobertR]

failed DBT's isn't conclusive proof, at least, not for me

But I think you’d acknowledge that the scientific case for lack of wire differences is much stronger that the reverse, even if you don’t want to call it conclusive. Your above statements indicate that your only counterevidence to the experimental data is speculation.

 

[Saurav]

Your above statements indicate that your only counterevidence to the experimental data is speculation.

I wouldn't even call it counter-evidence, because it's not proof of anything, because I'm not trying to offer proof of anything.
I've lost track of what we're arguing about Let's see.. I make a decision on something, based on my reasons. Let's say that decision is picking a speaker cable. Now, I'm fully aware that in a DBT, I probably wouldn't be able to hear a difference between this wire and another. However, I go ahead and pick this wire anyway, for my own reasons. I figure that I don't listen to my stereo as a succession of DBT's, and I like the way my tubes glow in the dark and my translucent interconnects reflect light and all that, and putting everything together, I prefer the overall experience of listening to my stereo with this particular speaker cable.
Now... what is the issue that we're arguing?