Quote:
I'm convinced that reports of improvements from replacement power cords are due to a combination of faulty perception and url=http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html]comb filtering[/url].

How would a power cord cause or change the amount of comb filtering?

"How far you want to go, how much you want to spend is really up to you. An audiophile does not need to justify his spending to anyone. The ends justifies the means."

Exactly what I told my wife yesterday...right before she bonked me on the noggin with a frypan. Stop and visualize these manufacturers of $20K cables...got it? Now watch as they laugh heartily whilst cashing your check. What do you reckon the COPS are on the Oracle speaker cable? $200 or $300...even $500? Labor....another $500--very generous number. But still a 20X ROI...not bad.

My friend, seriously now, I am not critical of you if you elect to spend that kind of $$ on cables. If you get pleasure out of owning them, are convinced that they improve your system...I think it's great that you can afford to enjoy chasing the audio golden fleece. And if you are a married man and successfully live by the above creed, then you are definitely da man.

I know guys who spend $6,000 (x2) per rim for their racing bikes. That's a road racing bicycle. twelve thousand dollars for a pair of rims.

And they do it why? Because it works. And nothing else does.

Why give audiophiles a hard time for the same mentality?

I have explained over the course of multiple threads and multiple ways...exactly why a given power cord has an effect on the music signal. Why it is heard by the ear.

It fits basic science to a 'T', zero faults in the logic, or the analysis, and zero faults in the science of it.

The problem begins when the given person on the given forum has an incomplete picture of what is going on, with regards to the science of electrical function and how that fits into how the ear works with the given signal.

Remember, our understanding of the human ear and our understanding of existence, regarding electrical function..is FAR from complete. At the far end of the scale..the self-realized scientist is capable of dealing with the one single fact that is known to exist..and all other is evolving theory..and that is that 'there are no facts of any kind - all is theory'. We can prove NOTHING..and have proven NOTHING..in the entire history of science. That one point---is the only fact we actually know. The rest..is merely theory that has proven to be correct--in most instances.

As a recent example, MIT has shown that thermodynamics has been violated..according to the current rules..in 'cold fusion'. YES..they validated Pons and Fleishman. Way back when..when they did the original duplication experiments. But their egos, positions in life, and small human fears would not allow them to say so. Only recently, in published works on the experiments..the full publications.....do they speak of 'anomalous heat'...in the footnotes. So Pons and Fleishman were literally pushed right out of the country..by the monkeys sitting on the backs of the scientists at MIT and other places.

With regards to 'violation' of the theories of physics, I have multiple personal examples, that won't be shared here. Lore, Remember? This is how some of us make coin. By knowing more or different things than the next guy.

The science of cables and of audio equipment, is one of LORE.

Audio designers and cable designers make money from the level of lore they have..and most specifically..how much lore they have and how much of it is beyond what the next guy knows. No small wonder that folks think of them as charlatans, as their knowledge is most specifically NOT common knowledge. I have revealed on one thread on the DIYAudio forum (as an example) a method by which a standard volume control may be increased in subjective quality, and I even gave the explanation, in basic electrical terms, as to why it would provide an increase in perceived sonic fidelity. I apologized to John Curl, for inadvertently releasing one of the 'CTC Blowtorch' Preamps's little 'secrets'. He said, 'Don't worry..they won't believe you'.

Well? I'm waiting for the ignorant to yell at me for making a common sense statement. Don't disappoint me.

The problem with ignorance, is that it is rampant. At the same time, almost everyone, to a man is dumb enough to think that the limit's of their knowledge, speculation and skills..is the limits of reality. Nothing could be further from truth than such small minded thinking.

And, as stated, the truth is that the idea of thought itself, in the human mind, is rooted in the hindbrain, in the subconscious, where thoughts are formed in an emotional root state, that is not a logical function..and this 'construct' protects itself from perceived harm, like a 3 year old fighting with other 3 year olds - over toys.

Due to that it won't be more than a few seconds before some scientist, EE, doctored, multiple-degree fool, or some average dude on the street comes in hear and tells me I'm full of shit.

And I say in plain and un-agitated English, 'Get thee to a psychiatrist, or, get some self-realization on exactly what construct, what Avatar -YOU- actually are, before you get in here and try and 'tell me what's what'.

But, you see, that construct is self protecting and your self realization of it, as a construct in your mind actually, in real terms threatens it's existence..and it will NOT allow you to 'go clear' and find some basic common sense and rational capacity that is rooted in a deeper truth. For to do so..requires a tearing in the mind and a re-construction of the self along less egocentric lines. The Ego does not want to do this and will do ANYTHING to maintain it's existence. Up to and including the real threat of death. This ego construct really began in most of us, as the 'internal voice' began, the internal dialog..that begins at about the age of 5 or so, in western society (it might happen at different times in other societies, but I doubt it- it's a point of basic human design and function). One of the layers in the mind, it is.

The net and realization point here, is that some will come onto this thread..right after I post this..and call me a nut bar for posting such swill.

Welcome to the reflection of your hindbrain's control over your life.

This exact point has everything to do with the subject at hand, ie cables..as it has to do with the definition of logical function and human mental internal design.

So when you give me grief, I ask you, "Would you like a Peanut?"

"A peanut? For what?", you say.

"For that monkey that is peeking over your shoulder and sitting on your back", I retort.

Ethan wrote: "I'm convinced that reports of improvements from replacement power cords are due to a combination of faulty perception and comb filtering."

I read your article regarding comb filtering as it applies to the listening room. Nice job. If the perceived sonic improvements can be attributed to room acoustics I wonder if that perceived improvement would vanish in an anechoic chamber? I'm betting it would not as long as the listener knows which cable is employed.

Great Idea on the T-shirt, BTW.

I might steal it for the RMAF. Make up some shirts. That'll get attention.

It would be neat to emblazon 'Sterophile Forum' on the back.

As a matter of fact, JA, why don't you guys..just go ahead and DO that?

Quote:
How would a power cord cause or change the amount of comb filtering?

As explained in the article, you listen, get up to change the power cord, sit down again after, and now the response at your ears is different because you're not sitting in exactly the same place again.

--Ethan

Quote:
The problem begins when the given person on the given forum has an incomplete picture of what is going on, with regards to the science of electrical function and how that fits into how the ear works with the given signal.

I like your passive-aggressive approach. You ward off nay-sayers in advance.

You might want to look at your own incomplete picture: the brain does the interpretation of the signals the ear is sending.

Now this one was funny:

"We can prove NOTHING..and have proven NOTHING..in the entire history of science. That one point---is the only fact we actually know. The rest..is merely theory that has proven to be correct--in most instances."

Get thee to a science class.

Quote:
If the perceived sonic improvements can be attributed to room acoustics I wonder if that perceived improvement would vanish in an anechoic chamber? I'm betting it would not as long as the listener knows which cable is employed.

Right, it's not only room acoustics, but that's at least a scientific reason for the sound to really change. However, I'm convinced the more common reasons are faulty perception, wishful thinking, and justification for spending money on audio jewelry.

--Ethan

Quote:
Now this one was funny:

"We can prove NOTHING..and have proven NOTHING...

Do you think our anonymous Mr. KBK will agree his statement includes all the stuff he writes in these threads?

I'm pretty sure he believes he has proven much!

--Ethan

KBK, once again you've lost me...actually after the first few lines, one of which was..."the problem begins when the given person on the given forum has an incomplete picture of what is going on, with regards to the science of electrical function and how that fits into how the ear works with the given signal." Well you got me there. Two questions: 1) where and when did you get your electrical engineering degree? and, 2) would you mind explaining, in sufficient detail, the science behind the propagation of an electrical current. I await on seat's edge.

I work quite hard at it Dup. It's all I do.

If it makes you feel better, in this world of customizable and musical cell phone rings..my choice is David Byrne's:

"Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away...."

Just remember there are no experts - only people who believe they exist. Therein lies the problem.

> Why give audiophiles a hard time for the same mentality?

Audiophiles are not given a hard time for spending lots of money on things that are of slightly higher performance but at a cost that nobody but an enthusiast would be willing to pay. Audiophiles are given a hard time for spending lots of money on things that have either the same performance or, in many cases, worse performance but that they claim are better. It is quite different.

> The science of cables and of audio equipment, is one of LORE.

It may be lore but it is mostly certainly not science. In order to qualify as science it must follow the scientific method. This is a requirement not an option. If you do not know what the scientific method is then a quick google will tell you.

Now audiophiles and audiophile designers are perfectly entitled to follow your/their/whoevers lore and make lots of money doing it. Good luck to them but they will have problems if efforts are made to bring the word science on board to help with the marketing.

> Well? I'm waiting for the ignorant to yell at me for making a common sense
> statement. Don't disappoint me.

Can you please point out the location of this common sense statement?

> The problem with ignorance, is that it is rampant.

I do not see this as much of a problem since everyone is ignorant about most of the things there are to know. I would suggest a more relevant problem is people not recognising ignorance in areas that are important to them.

> At the same time, almost everyone, to a man is dumb enough to think that the
> limit's of their knowledge, speculation and skills..is the limits of reality.
> Nothing could be further from truth than such small minded thinking.

This is one of the things that seems to separate audiophiles from normal people. It takes an unusually strong combination of ignorance and arrogance for an audiophile to project their beliefs and experiences about sound, sound perception and the workings of audio equipment onto the world around them when they know they have no grasp of how things work and they know that they are in disagreement with people that having taken the time to get educated about how things work. Perhaps audiophiles think other audiophiles are not in the same position but have taken the time to get educated?

>> "We can prove NOTHING..and have proven NOTHING..in the entire history
>> of science. That one point---is the only fact we actually know. The
>> rest..is merely theory that has proven to be correct--in most instances."
>
> Get thee to a science class.

Although the word prove has been used in two different ways (the use in the last sentence does not line up with the use in the earlier ones) the statement is essentially correct. Science cannot prove things in the way mathematics can prove things with certainty. Science can only "prove" things in the way the law "proves" someone guilty or innocent. Doubt remains although after hundreds of years of the whole of mankind never observing a discrepancy that doubt will be very small among the rational.

> I would add that I was always skeptical about "wire" and power cords until I
> had a recording issue with an old desk top and used an MIT power cord
> which dropped the noise floor "visibly" over 10DB. This was not an
> insignificant improvement.

Indeed. And you concluded that you had a problem with you old desktop, you had screwed up the measurements, that some unknown magic in the MIT power cord was doing it's thing or what?

All I can say is - I've said enough already.

All that remains, is the time spent looking at the clock, waiting for folks to calm down and for reason to enter their minds - For them to engage in the slightly painful task of reorganizing, in their minds, the question of explorations on auditory qualities perceived vs the fundamentals of measurements as tied to human aural considerations.

What should be a more obvious point, as made my Max Planck, but seldom used..should be emblazoned over every door in any given University or College that supposedly teaches the Art of Science*..and that quote is:

"Science advances....Funeral by Funeral."

*(Art implies the exploration of gift, so perhaps it is too generous a word. The idea of art is invariably beaten out of the more apt students, unless they meet the zipperhead mold requirements)

edit: A few more quotes to make the point clear.

"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot."
-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Feb. 1998)

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

For example, eventually, one comes to the flaw in just about anything. The Scientific method, as it exists today..is one created by Newton when he used his angry emotional stance and feelings on his prior snubbing by the Royal Society..when he took over the Royal Society and re-wrote the rules on Scientific method. He was angry that the Royal Society did not accept his totally unproven mathematics on light as fact. Fact with no support of any kind. Just math alone. He changed the rules around so that math predates the idea of exploration. Ie, math being the defacto point and then the reality found to support it.

This is foolishness of the highest order. Before that, the method involved observation of a phenomena..anomalous or intriguing..and then explored and experimented with..and then the math and experimentation brought together..to flesh it out into some kid of hopefully workable theory. But NEVER the math first. Math is not reality. It is entirely a human fabrication. A useful TOOL. Nothing more. Reality is most specifically NOT defined by math. However, the foolishness of time and man has ingrained that idea into the idea of science, so that nothing outside the current math, today, is considered to be even remotely acceptable. Math defining reality and scientific exploration. What fundamental foolishness. Hard to get to new..when the established ideas block you, isn't it? Lots of human considerations get in the way, in a world blindsided by the idea that math rules, scientists have no emotions and are never wrong. What bullshit.

Folks are even dumb enough, at all scientific levels..to call them laws. Theory-Nothing more. Always remember that. Never use the word 'law' again. You will go one hell of a lot further. One must remember the origin, in the English language..for the world 'Law'. Law means a system of human societal norms established with a mode pf punishment and prosecution enacted against individuals who violate that tenant or human societal overall 'rule'. Kind of drags the idea of scientific 'laws', and the vehemence and brutality enacted towards and upon those individuals who attempt the new....into a greater light, doesn't it?

One must also understand that Newton was a fundamental cornerstone of the creation of the Bank of England, which was an illegal enterprise on the creation of Fiat currencies and interest...a system of financial manipulation that was punishable by death in England, before the creation of the Bank of England. Why? Because Fiat currencies and interest was a well of insanity that was designed to control societies and served as their masters..and the old Kings of England knew this only too well. So they were forbidden on punishment by death. Brutal death, as well..to make the point clear.

When the Bank of England was created, the King was granted 25% of it..and that was how the old (6-12 thousand year old) Babylonian control system was recreated, the one that works so well. Newton was awarded the position of Bank of England Comptroller..and relished the idea of disguising himself and catching counterfeiters and similar, while in disguise, in the old equivalent of Bars and the like. He literally enjoyed the ability to have them killed on his word..and then enjoyed their punishments..which were the literal case of..drawn and quartered. And worse. His position of Comptroller was awarded to him due to his fame as the world's greatest Alchemist, so the common folk would believe that the gold the bank supposedly had..actually existed. When it did not. It was a fractional reserve currency. Which, remember, beforehand..was punishable by horrible death. For it was known to be a con to control societies--via the existence..of..nothing.

Be careful what you believe in.

KBK is asked about his scientific credentials......(cue cricket sounds)...suspicions confirmed. His posts are the musings of an armchair philosopher (i.e. the equivalent of a hot air balloon).

Just to close this thread which I sort of started (my apologies), this thing we all enjoy is a HOBBY, not cancer research, and as such should be taken a bit less seriously. Audiophiles will always push back and say "it's all about the music" but that statement is more easily challenged than the power cord claims. I take back everything I said about those $20K cables. If several of you get together and pool your rebate checks, you could buy a pair of them and take turns. In this slow economy we audiophiles could actually have a positive impact.

Once again, you miss the point. Your ignorance is not unexpected.

I have nothing against you, good sir. However, beliefs pervade science like any religion. After all, There are Humans involved.

One must also remember that science does not define reality. It only attempts to define a protocol. And it would be good for the proponents of science, the pundits and otherwise, to remember that.

It is also easy to see, the monkey in us, peeking over our shoulders..and striking back.

Where is the vaunted logic, now?

Also note..that you 'labeled' me.

This is excruciatingly common in the realm of linear thinkers, who enter engineering and science fields. This systematic and syncopated system suits their overall rote memory retention system. Eidetic recall becomes the vaunted goal..and creativity ends up in the trashbin, as it does not fit the system. If the past is fixed..how does the future guide itself from this realm of the present?

Creativity is lost. Lost to the idea of everything needing a label. Measured. numbered. Ordered. Settled. Established. Factual. Immutable.

And science..is hoisted by it's own petard, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Quote:

Quote:
How would a power cord cause or change the amount of comb filtering?

As explained in the article, you listen, get up to change the power cord, sit down again after, and now the response at your ears is different because you're not sitting in exactly the same place again.

Ah, yes. I forgot this simple point from your article.

I label you as an armchair philosopher, you label me as an ignorant, linear-thinking engineer. You obviously get more enjoyment hearing yourself wax eloquent about just about everything except audio, thesaurus tucked under your arm; if you need to scratch that particular itch why not seek out a forum where your 50 cent words aren't lost on a bunch of linear thinkers? Just for the record, my friend, I have been published in scientific journals and even some nonlinear-thinking magazines but I can't profess to being anywhere near your level.

ES, read my signature. It's an actual KBK quote. I think it pretty much says it all.

All I know is this is my new fav saying:

"The problem with ignorance, is that it is rampant."

Quote:
I label you as an armchair philosopher, you label me as an ignorant, linear-thinking engineer. You obviously get more enjoyment hearing yourself wax eloquent about just about everything except audio, thesaurus tucked under your arm; if you need to scratch that particular itch why not seek out a forum where your 50 cent words aren't lost on a bunch of linear thinkers? Just for the record, my friend, I have been published in scientific journals and even some nonlinear-thinking magazines but I can't profess to being anywhere near your level.

Hey, I like this guy!

Quote:
I label you as an armchair philosopher, you label me as an ignorant, linear-thinking engineer. You obviously get more enjoyment hearing yourself wax eloquent about just about everything except audio, thesaurus tucked under your arm; if you need to scratch that particular itch why not seek out a forum where your 50 cent words aren't lost on a bunch of linear thinkers? Just for the record, my friend, I have been published in scientific journals and even some nonlinear-thinking magazines but I can't profess to being anywhere near your level.

That's right, nowhere near his level, it would be hard to go that low :-)

We have an expression in Texas:

KBK is " lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut"

Sorry K, just goofing.

Hey, I like this guy!

x2

"We are not all grandiose experts in the organization of flowering prose. We are only human." - KBK

I remember a coworker coming up with something equally profound: "human beings are funny people". Can I get an amen on THAT one.

or in this instance perhaps more apropos: "he took the words right out of my...Roget's Thesaurus."

KBK, I wouldn't presume that you haven't read Blake, but just in case...

Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

Bring out number, weight, & measure in a year of dearth.

What is now proved was once only imagined.

Of course, Blake's favorite triumvirate of villains included Bacon, Newton, and Locke, each of whom, in his own peculiar way, mistook numbers for reality. An oscilloscope is a poor substitute for even the faintest musical note. Numbers are the servants, not the masters.

Good God, don't get me started on the fractional reserve banking system, the deep-set source of all the problems in the credit markets now bludgeoning us anew with every sunrise. They have made speculators of us all, willing or not.

Happy tunes.

"All I can say is - I've said enough already. "

And yet... what followed was another 4000 words. Reality indeed is filled with paradox and illusion of the ego. You are not yet comfortable with Nothingness as you seem to be trying to fill it with as many words as possible! A futile and Empty endeavor my son.

Quote:
"All I can say is - I've said enough already. "

And yet... what followed was another 4000 words. Reality indeed is filled with paradox and illusion of the ego. You are not yet comfortable with Nothingness as you seem to be trying to fill it with as many words as possible! A futile and Empty endeavor my son.

Doug,

Please realize that KBK is not a grandiose expert in the organization of flowering prose. He is only human.

<<Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

Bring out number, weight, & measure in a year of dearth.

What is now proved was once only imagined.

Of course, Blake's favorite triumvirate of villains included Bacon, Newton, and Locke, each of whom, in his own peculiar way, mistook numbers for reality. An oscilloscope is a poor substitute for even the faintest musical note. Numbers are the servants, not the masters.

Good God, don't get me started on the fractional reserve banking system, the deep-set source of all the problems in the credit markets now bludgeoning us anew with every sunrise. They have made speculators of us all, willing or not.>>

Good God indeed! I am in way over my head here. WAY over it.

Quote:

Quote:
"All I can say is - I've said enough already. "

And yet... what followed was another 4000 words. Reality indeed is filled with paradox and illusion of the ego. You are not yet comfortable with Nothingness as you seem to be trying to fill it with as many words as possible! A futile and Empty endeavor my son.

Doug,

Please realize that KBK is not a grandiose expert in the organization of flowering prose. He is only human.

Just as certain as the fact that paranoids may have real enemies, grandiose experts in the organization of flowering prose may speak the truth!

I know his style doesn't win a lot of popularity contests or mesh easily with the prevailing masculine construct of the "just give me the facts" lab-coated engineer, but...KBK speaks the truth about our limited Western world view.

An extremely bright and influential professor in high school in 1966 challenged us to think critically beyond the constraints of the scientific paradigm, but reminded us that the most brilliant quantuum physicists understood that the forces holding together our atomic building blocks could not be explained as the same forces that held together our universe. If the most brilliant scientists enjoyed the paradoxes and dead ends in the lore of science, then why did all the psychologists and social critics fail so miserably when co-opting the empirical veneer of the scientific method to devise their "facts" about human behavior and perception?

If you cling too tightly to what you think you know, there is no hope for learning what you don't.

Quote:
<<Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

Bring out number, weight, & measure in a year of dearth.

What is now proved was once only imagined.

Of course, Blake's favorite triumvirate of villains included Bacon, Newton, and Locke, each of whom, in his own peculiar way, mistook numbers for reality. An oscilloscope is a poor substitute for even the faintest musical note. Numbers are the servants, not the masters.

Good God, don't get me started on the fractional reserve banking system, the deep-set source of all the problems in the credit markets now bludgeoning us anew with every sunrise. They have made speculators of us all, willing or not.>>

Good God indeed! I am in way over my head here. WAY over it.

Is this a criticism or an admission? No room for poetry on the forum? A few lines that speak volumes of truth is an economy that should appeal to the scientific mind, no?

Nicely put, Clifton.

es347, your avatar (yes, and how I hate that designation...but, one must live with the times) resembles an Ewok who fell asleep in the boughs for a few years.

I usually don't do these things, but I'll parse a bit, if you feel you're in past your slide rule (Um. More figurative language -- I DO know you guys don't use slide rules any more. God. This is going to be tough).

The cart is a symbol of industry. The plow is a symbol for renewal.

Perception is constitutive, depending on the perceiver.

When you do not understand the reasons for your sorrows, measure and weigh abstractions of them.

Imagination precedes proof. Vision creates. Science verifies and limits what vision creates, then dies (the "funeral," quoted by KBK, above). New vision, imagined, gets measured and verified, only to witness the next funeral. And so it goes. See Blake's "The Mental Traveler," which images this "same dull round."

All knowledge is cyclical. Imagination creates, science proves, and imitation of "what has been proved" kills. And the cycle begins again.

If you are going to be a wise old Ewok, you must also read poetry. Otherwise, you merely die late in the cycle. I recommend Blake. And Yeats. Blake is a good place to start. Neither poet demands belief, unlike the gray-aproned Newton. Merely attention.

Music is poetry. If you don't understand this, begin with Shakespeare (I recommend "The Tempest," since you'll probably misread "Hamlet"). Then Blake. Then Yeats.

Otherwise, give us some more (yawn) numerical proofs. We will regard them with the appropriate ironies.

Please, oh, PLEASE, solve the mystery of the $1,000 cable. Definitively. The industry is on tenterhooks.

Tell us what you plug your skeptical cables into. Of course, how could THAT make a difference?

Quote:
Right, it's not only room acoustics, but that's at least a scientific reason for the sound to really change. However, I'm convinced the more common reasons are faulty perception, wishful thinking, and justification for spending money on audio jewelry.
--Ethan

Quote:
If you cling too tightly to what you think you know, there is no hope for learning what you don't.

Messrs. Vance/Clifton/KBK:

Gentlemen, worthy adversaries all; I'm counting on you to make this world a better place. Good night, and good luck.

Hey, don't go away, your presence is desired and welcome. I've stated before that I'm not immune to my own bullshit-as are we all. (No, no, not mine!..our own! )

Everyone brings something to the building of the bridge. The bridge is incomplete without it. Essentially..non-functional.

Quote:

Quote:
"All I can say is - I've said enough already. "

And yet... what followed was another 4000 words. Reality indeed is filled with paradox and illusion of the ego. You are not yet comfortable with Nothingness as you seem to be trying to fill it with as many words as possible! A futile and Empty endeavor my son.

Doug,

Please realize that KBK is not a grandiose expert in the organization of flowering prose. He is only human.

I've been meaning to comment on your use of that bit as a signature.

It is a masterpiece of perfectly self explanatory awkwardness, isn't it? Hell, it's even got a touch of subtlety. I mean, one really has to be paying attention to get the joke and humour of it, that did not strike me until you used it as a signature. That it was entirely unintended, in all ways, makes it all the better.

Quote:
All knowledge is cyclical. Imagination creates, science proves, and imitation of "what has been proved" kills. And the cycle begins again.

If you are going to be a wise old Ewok, you must also read poetry. Otherwise, you merely die late in the cycle. I recommend Blake. And Yeats. Blake is a good place to start. Neither poet demands belief, unlike the gray-aproned Newton. Merely attention.

Speaking of recommendations, if you are interested in learning about the philosophy of science, rather than spreading strawman misrepresentations of it, I'd recommend that you read some of the works of Karl Popper. One reader on Amazon posted a wonderful summary of Popper's views expressed in the book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" that I'll quote in part below.

"According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification."

Quote:

Quote:

"According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification."

Andy...interesting quote. I'll admit to not being aware of Popper which further supports that notion that I'm am not well read and the notion that I am indeed a linear thinker. So here I go again eh? I realize that this is not a 100% black and white world in which we live but...and feel free to affix any label to me you wish, I believe that certain absolutes exist and will continue to exist even when challenged. For instance, I have great faith in Newtonian physics. Those laws have been applicable since the universe was a pup and will likely continue to be. Along comes Einstein and points out that adjustments must be made when we are approaching light speed. Fair enough. We've done that and his theory, albeit a law now perhaps?, holds up. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian physics, he just fine tuned it. I am relatively (pun intended) sure that gravity is a law...started out as a hunch likely...that just may withstand the rigors of scientific challenges. Seems to this old boy that the law of gravity has been sufficiently proved.

And how does all this relate to exotic power cords? Beats the hell out of me.

Quote:

Quote:
All knowledge is cyclical. Imagination creates, science proves, and imitation of "what has been proved" kills. And the cycle begins again.

If you are going to be a wise old Ewok, you must also read poetry. Otherwise, you merely die late in the cycle. I recommend Blake. And Yeats. Blake is a good place to start. Neither poet demands belief, unlike the gray-aproned Newton. Merely attention.

Speaking of recommendations, if you are interested in learning about the philosophy of science, rather than spreading strawman misrepresentations of it, I'd recommend that you read some of the works of Karl Popper. One reader on Amazon posted a wonderful summary of Popper's views expressed in the book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" that I'll quote in part below.

"According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification."

Great citation Andy and realize that Popper was refuting the empiricists who felt their scientific observations were infallible...and the behaviorists who attempted to co-opt classical scientific reductionism to compartmentalize human behavior. It was revolutionaries like Popper who advanced the state of science by admitting its fallibility. Fallibility/disprovability was the criterion upon which his philosophy of science existed.

By the same token, if one clings to a belief system which disproves or rejects its own truths every generation or so, how can one then disparage a religion founded on core beliefs from ancient inception? Which has the greater claim to validity?

Quote:
An extremely bright and influential professor ... reminded us that the most brilliant quantuum physicists understood that the forces holding together our atomic building blocks could not be explained as the same forces that held together our universe.

We're talking about audio fer chrissake, not particle physics! Everything that matters with audio has been fully understood for more than 60 years. Just because some people here don't understand it doesn't mean that nobody understands it!

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
An extremely bright and influential professor ... reminded us that the most brilliant quantuum physicists understood that the forces holding together our atomic building blocks could not be explained as the same forces that held together our universe.

We're talking about audio fer chrissake, not particle physics! Everything that matters with audio has been fully understood for more than 60 years. Just because some people here don't understand it doesn't mean that nobody understands it!

--Ethan

In newtonian terms, they are both fully understood, ie ohms law, Watt, Bell, etc.

On the fundamental level, the observation of points that exceed the postulations of acoustics and those of Newtonian measurements and views in electrical function..do exist..and continue to exist.

As an example, the very functions of the idea of electrical considerations take place on the quantum and particle level, to create the idea and example of Newtonian measurements. Fluctuations and slight changes from that norm are dismissed as measurement anomalies. Careful!

Same for acoustics. The real action takes place at the particle level. Not at the measurement level.

When it comes to audio cables vs human hearing function, neither is written in stone of either consideration.

The 'problem' of audio cables and signals vs. hearing function..both hit the wall with respects to measurement and observation of human function.

On one side..we have those who cannot see the possibilities and issues, saying that all the audiophiles have psychological issues.

And the audiophiles know what they heard,and simply say to the measurement guy, 'Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You are missing something! Try again!"

But if the engineer or explorer of these issues does not step beyond the situation where the numbers and observations simply do not jibe... then they will never figure out what is going on.

It is easier for the 'monkey inside' (in whatever person it may be) to say that audiophiles are full of shit and need to see a doctor, than it is for them to go back and start anew, looking for the missed points or the new science.

Quote:
On the fundamental level, the observation of points that exceed the postulations of acoustics and those of Newtonian measurements and views in electrical function..do exist..and continue to exist.

You, my friend, are a master at obfuscation. In other words, you are a master debater.

Quote:
And the audiophiles know what they heard

Nah, they only think they hear a difference. Always for the better, of course! This is the real issue whether you accept it or not. Human hearing is very frail, as proven by the DBT tests that believers love to diss because they're consistently proven not to be able to hear what they think they can hear. So rather than accept that "meters" are 50 times more accurate than their own hearing, they make up BS arguments for why DBT is flawed.

--Ethan

WOW! All of these posts in one week, the last time I visited. No way that I'm going to read all of the posts to get caught up.
Power source harmonics are bad?
What is the source of these harmonics?
Does anyone have a shot from a spectrum analyzer of the frequency spectrum of various line sources?
I might take on this task myself.
Besides the fact that inherent capacitance and inductance in a power supply will reduce higher order harmonics more than the fundamental, the harmonics are already much lower in level than the fundamental. The real question of interest regarding power cords and power supplies is what is the voltage stability of the supply and what is the level and frequency spectrum of its noise on the D.C. side. If changing the power cord has no effect on any of these parameters, then it is not audible.

As a side note, I have been trying not to pay attention to the identity of the poster in order to not prejudge any posts. But KBK, what the heck are you talking about? Are you just messing with us or are you just that much smarter such that I have no clue what you're talking about and its relevence? And Ethan, you are making replies that are way to logical. I am getting worried that DUP is the only one that I can count on to be predictable.

Andy, sorry, but Popper is old news. I read this work and had trouble staying awake. Now, so are Blake and Yeats old news. But they use fresher imagery. They are poets. Popper is a preacher. In the abstract.

Thanks for the heads up, but you are 'way late...

Quote:
Nah, they only think they hear a difference. Always for the better, of course!

When I was putting together my hi-fi system, the interconnects I was planning to use had not arrived, so my vendor suggested I try a couple costing $1K and $1.5K respectively. Yes the more expensive ones did sound better but when my interconnects arrived, I could not resist trying them and even after a couple of weeks, switching between them I still preferred the ones I had originally planned to use and would you believe that they cost $400. In another system it may well be a different story.
I will accept that the world worships anything with a big price tag but how any one who calls himself an audiophile, blindly (instead of using one's ears) come to the conclusion that what is more expensive will always sound better.
As mentioned earlier, I am now thinking of replacing that $400 I/C with a famous $1K one (being unable to afford another even more famous less than $3K one) and I will do it the exact same way (switch between them over a couple of weeks) and then decide if the new one is indeed better. Would I be able to tell the difference in a DBT?
I don't know and I don't care as its my money, my system and I don't need to prove to anyone if something sounds better to me.

Quote:

As a side note, I have been trying not to pay attention to the identity of the poster in order to not prejudge any posts. But KBK, what the heck are you talking about? Are you just messing with us or are you just that much smarter such that I have no clue what you're talking about and its relevence? And Ethan, you are making replies that are way to logical. I am getting worried that DUP is the only one that I can count on to be predictable.

I'm crushing your head! I'm crushing your head!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Tyzik

Quote:
Andy...interesting quote. I'll admit to not being aware of Popper which further supports that notion that I'm am not well read and the notion that I am indeed a linear thinker. So here I go again eh? I realize that this is not a 100% black and white world in which we live but...and feel free to affix any label to me you wish, I believe that certain absolutes exist and will continue to exist even when challenged.

Hi ES,

Yes, I know where you're coming from. I'm a semi-retired EE myself and have similar trust in Maxwell's equations. Why? Because they've been tested so darned much by so many people for so long (since the mid 19th century). I used to work on EM simulation software. With this software, the user would input information about the geometry of the structure being analyzed, as well as the electrical parameters (mu, epsilon, etc.) of the materials which make up the structure. The software would solve Maxwell's equations on a mesh, and find the S-parameters of the structure. In tandem with this, we worked with some vendors who constructed some structures and measured them up to about 40 GHz. We could not release the software until we got very good correlation between simulations and measurements. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, we found some numerical problems with the code, and, once fixed, the measured results agreed with the theory quite well. The point here is that nobody said anything like "Maxwell's equations must be wrong because my code gives the wrong answer". Why not? Not because Maxwell's equations are infallible, but that the odds of them being incorrect is so vanishingly small that only someone with brass ones would risk their career on such an assumption. Yet in the audiophile world, you read statements similar to that all the time, except they are often based on questionable experimental techniques (uncontrolled experiments) and deal with frequencies more than 6 orders of magnitude less than what's used in microwave work. In the case of Maxwell's equations, a huge body of not just theoretical knowledge, but also practical application depends on them, and the practical stuff just would not work at all if Maxwell's equations were so broken that they didn't accurately predict what's going on in the audio range.

My previous point was not aimed at you at all, but rather at the strawman view that's sometimes expressed about what science supposedly is and is not.

Quote:
For instance, I have great faith in Newtonian physics. Those laws have been applicable since the universe was a pup and will likely continue to be. Along comes Einstein and points out that adjustments must be made when we are approaching light speed. Fair enough. We've done that and his theory, albeit a law now perhaps?, holds up. Einstein didn't disprove Newtonian physics, he just fine tuned it. I am relatively (pun intended) sure that gravity is a law...started out as a hunch likely...that just may withstand the rigors of scientific challenges. Seems to this old boy that the law of gravity has been sufficiently proved.

A similar thing happened with Maxwell's equations way back when also. The equation for the curl of H was modified to add the displacement current term, which then fixed the discrepancies seen between theory and application in some specific cases.

Quote:
And how does all this relate to exotic power cords? Beats the hell out of me.

Well, if we stick to Maxwell's equations rather than, say, gravity, that's applicable to the cable controversy. But I think most of the distinction here is philosophical, rather than practical. That is, "proving" in a scientific sense is a philosophical can of worms. But this is where the audio charlatans get the philosophical foot in the door. If one assumes physical laws are infallible, one is not being scientific. If one assumes they are fallible, that opens the door to the logical fallacy of the assumption that because something is fallible, it's likely to be wrong. All human knowledge and endeavor is fallible, yet we cannot say that all human knowledge and endeavor is wrong.

Maxwell's equations are another whole ball of wax.

The story goes that Maxwell never really finished the works. He was headed toward a second set.

He died, mysteriously, out of the blue-from stomach Cancer. Young.

His equations were simplified by Heaviside, who remove the inherent asymmetry supposedly..in order to simplify the works for engineers in motor design.

Then, later on, Lorentz, who worked for JP Morgan, remove the last vestiges of asymmetry. These are the same guys who Newton was involved with. The asymmetry, you see..allowed for so-called 'overunity', the basic aspect of directional (interactive) spin in the quantum considerations of electrical function.

The 'Maxwell's equations' that everyone has been taught have nothing to do with Maxwell's work.

They are entirely a fabrication.

Maxwell's real works have only recently become available again,as before the dawn of the internet, the original treatise or copies thereof..where sold privately for upwards of $5000.00 or more. Solely because of what was in them..and what it brings to the table.

This is the quandary of MagnetoHydroDynamics... today.