Sundar Prasad
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2000
- Messages
- 54
Saurav - no I am not new. I just usually never post unless I have nothing better to do
I have been reading this stuff on RAHE (rec.audio.high-end, a usenet group) since 1989.
This beast called 'degradation' - is there any objective measurement of its effects on the sound emanating from the speakers at the end of the chain? Also, assuming that this so called degradation is predominantly a linear process (most physical and electrical phenomena are), then there are problems with how 6 feet of designer power cord connected at the end of 600 miles (a reasonable number I think) of standard power transmission wire is going to produce a different quality of electricity than a stock power cord. In math terms, let the 'degradation' in non-boutique power cable be of the order of 1 LOA/foot of cable. LOA stands for Loss of Airiness, a mystifying phrase used by many audiophile scribes. Now 600 miles = 3,168,000 feet. The total degradation loss from generator to wall socket is 3,168,000 LOA units. I add 6 feet of stock cord. Total loss is 3,168,006 LOA. I replace stock power cord with a frickin' Black Mamba which say for sake of argument superconducts at room temperature. Thus no additional LOA is added between wall socket and amplifier.
The signal to my amp is now cleaner by 0.000189%. I will be damned if someone can prove that this difference is audible in a normal listening space EVEN if I satisfy the straw-man requirement of 'differences can be heard only if you have high resolution components'.
Re. the apples vs. oranges thing - all I am saying is that a competent interconnect does not have to be expensive. All other permutations of competence and cost should agree with the above opinion of mine.
Also, in all the years that I have seen people on both sides of this camp expressing their opinions on this decidedly controversial and undying subject, I have never begrudged anyone for their choice in spending large sums of money on a product and enjoying the results of that purchase. They have every right to do so - heck I do it in my own way - I buy an expensive front projector when a 20 inch RCA TV suits my friend just fine.
My only problem is with those same people turning around and cluck-clucking about the reduced performance I must be getting because I have not made the same equipment choices as they have. When I ask for good reasons as to why they think so - especially with respect to cables - I am given technobabble. I have seen this with idiots who have no concept of signal theory, fourier analysis etc. who insist that digitizing audio at 44.1 kHz results in loss of audible information between samples, and that LP's have infinite bandwidth/resolution.
In conclusion - my argument has never been against a company selling snake oil or a person paying big money and enjoying it. More power to them. I have a problem with the way the product is presented in their so called 'white papers' which spew truckloads of nonsense about the technical merits of their creations. This unfortunately also filters down to the non-technical consumer who is routinely fed misinformation about cables by salesmen in high-end and mass market stores. Not knowing any better, the customer is suckered into buying something that they didn't really need in the first place. The principle of caveat emptor could be applied here, but I feel that in a field as technical and confusing as audio/video, the customer has a right to be given objective and truthful information before they make a choice about the cost vs benefit of a product they are about to purchase. This is especially true when it comes to cables of any kind.
p.s. just after I posted this I read Brian's note. I completely agree that power can be polluted. Hell I see it clearly in my TV which is near pristine between the hours of 3 am to 7 am. After that as people wake up and switch everything on, a lot of line hash gets through and the image quality suffers probably as a consequence of both dirty power and a dirty cable signal. However, any form of hardware to clean up the incoming power has orders of magnitude more benefit on the performance of electronics connected to it than the cable between the power conditioner and the amp. This can also be shown objectively.
No more posts on this topic from me. We must just agree to disagree.
[Edited last by Sundar Prasad on October 31, 2001 at 07:55 PM]
This beast called 'degradation' - is there any objective measurement of its effects on the sound emanating from the speakers at the end of the chain? Also, assuming that this so called degradation is predominantly a linear process (most physical and electrical phenomena are), then there are problems with how 6 feet of designer power cord connected at the end of 600 miles (a reasonable number I think) of standard power transmission wire is going to produce a different quality of electricity than a stock power cord. In math terms, let the 'degradation' in non-boutique power cable be of the order of 1 LOA/foot of cable. LOA stands for Loss of Airiness, a mystifying phrase used by many audiophile scribes. Now 600 miles = 3,168,000 feet. The total degradation loss from generator to wall socket is 3,168,000 LOA units. I add 6 feet of stock cord. Total loss is 3,168,006 LOA. I replace stock power cord with a frickin' Black Mamba which say for sake of argument superconducts at room temperature. Thus no additional LOA is added between wall socket and amplifier.
The signal to my amp is now cleaner by 0.000189%. I will be damned if someone can prove that this difference is audible in a normal listening space EVEN if I satisfy the straw-man requirement of 'differences can be heard only if you have high resolution components'.
Re. the apples vs. oranges thing - all I am saying is that a competent interconnect does not have to be expensive. All other permutations of competence and cost should agree with the above opinion of mine.
Also, in all the years that I have seen people on both sides of this camp expressing their opinions on this decidedly controversial and undying subject, I have never begrudged anyone for their choice in spending large sums of money on a product and enjoying the results of that purchase. They have every right to do so - heck I do it in my own way - I buy an expensive front projector when a 20 inch RCA TV suits my friend just fine.
My only problem is with those same people turning around and cluck-clucking about the reduced performance I must be getting because I have not made the same equipment choices as they have. When I ask for good reasons as to why they think so - especially with respect to cables - I am given technobabble. I have seen this with idiots who have no concept of signal theory, fourier analysis etc. who insist that digitizing audio at 44.1 kHz results in loss of audible information between samples, and that LP's have infinite bandwidth/resolution.
In conclusion - my argument has never been against a company selling snake oil or a person paying big money and enjoying it. More power to them. I have a problem with the way the product is presented in their so called 'white papers' which spew truckloads of nonsense about the technical merits of their creations. This unfortunately also filters down to the non-technical consumer who is routinely fed misinformation about cables by salesmen in high-end and mass market stores. Not knowing any better, the customer is suckered into buying something that they didn't really need in the first place. The principle of caveat emptor could be applied here, but I feel that in a field as technical and confusing as audio/video, the customer has a right to be given objective and truthful information before they make a choice about the cost vs benefit of a product they are about to purchase. This is especially true when it comes to cables of any kind.
p.s. just after I posted this I read Brian's note. I completely agree that power can be polluted. Hell I see it clearly in my TV which is near pristine between the hours of 3 am to 7 am. After that as people wake up and switch everything on, a lot of line hash gets through and the image quality suffers probably as a consequence of both dirty power and a dirty cable signal. However, any form of hardware to clean up the incoming power has orders of magnitude more benefit on the performance of electronics connected to it than the cable between the power conditioner and the amp. This can also be shown objectively.
No more posts on this topic from me. We must just agree to disagree.
[Edited last by Sundar Prasad on October 31, 2001 at 07:55 PM]
