Mains cables, myths, magic, laws of physics and dambusters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordon Steadman

Whilst I believe in discussion, there comes a point where it all breaks down into another belief/non belief religion type argument. The louder anyone shouts, the louder will be the riposte with neither side giving an inch. It appears on every forum, to the extent that some get banned for being too 'intense'. Why is it so damned important to be 'right'?

---

Indeed (on all counts). I think that Richard is getting a little bit too intense, but probably only because it's a subject he's passionate about.

For me, these discussions are never about being right - they're about sharing views and learning from each other's valid experiences, particularly if someone of an opposite mindset/opinion can make you think differently about something you previously believed, and in such a way that one genuinely learns something new.

What I abhor is arrogance, entrenched views and blinkered dogma - all of which inhibit genuine learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldpinkman

Marco - Yes your point tidied up the language, but missed the point. Barnes Wallis (Stan cited him too in our earlier ding), James Dyson, and the Wilbur and Orville, all pushed the boundaries WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. They were challenging what could be achieved, they were innovative, and determined, and right, and made major contributions, but they all acknowledged and worked WITH science. And they all convincingly demonstrated their ideas worked.

---

Richard, I totally agree. I've conceded the point from the other thread regarding your stance on the laws of physics, as my last reply to you there should've indicated. Challenging the 'accepted norm' or 'currently accepted wisdom', which I outlined in that response, is really what I meant - and I stand by what I wrote there in that respect.

Basically, as I've said many times before, I'm totally against the 'it's bollocks because it can't be measured' brigade, in audio, as in my opinion it demonstrates both simplistic thinking and a stubborn unwillingness to admit the possible existence of new phenomena which forces one to rethink what was previously possible.

That's it in a nutshell :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mains Cables R Us

as I find it highly enjoyable when a customer makes an effort to phone me to say how incredibly better his hi-fi sounds just by adding a new mains lead

---

I'm sure you do David. End of the day though, "incredibly better" is massively exaggerated. If there were very clear and easily identifiable differences between cables then there wouldn't be a debate in the first place. I am a cable believer, but it's not night and day differences. A lot of irritation in the cable debate stems from when people start saying "huge", "what a massive difference" etc. I know it's all subjective (what is "huge" etc.)... unfortunately a subjective medium such as cables (damned if we can measure it) is more prey to hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walpurgis

And valve amps!

---

Sorry, Geoff, that's a bad example.

Good valve amps should ALWAYS test well, in terms of the usual electrical parameters (and consequently sound good), as I'm sure all the resident valve amplifier designers here will tell you. Anthony TD and Nick Gorham, for example, would never allow such amps to leave their test bench and go into production otherwise! ;)

If you're talking purely about certain aspects of distortion, in comparison with that of solid-state amplifiers, then that's a different matter :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

If you're talking purely about certain aspects of distortion, in comparison with that of solid-state amplifiers, then that's a different matter :) Marco.

---

Yes Marco, that was what I was getting at. Many older 'Classic' valve amplifiers were renowned for not measuring well, but still sounded superb.

Ok, one at a time.

I started this thread to get the discussion off someone elses thread which mcru complained had been hijacked.

Whilst my last post there was meant to be tongue-in cheek I did note that marcos continuation of the "off thread" discussion was warmly applauded by the very person who asked for posts to stay on topic. When it suits? Or brown tonguing?

Gordon. I am not that worked up. The jury is still out. I plan to make a serious attempt to hear mains cables make a difference. If they don't I would allow others to prove they do. If they can't or won't expect me to call "stinking fish" and maybe fraud. I don't like bullshit - even from otherwise nice chaps.

To return to barnes wallis.he did not say "I can't explain it, but trust me it will bounce".he produced pages of computations and then said "look nevermind that - I'll show you" . Anyone care to do that for mains cables, instead of bleating the old mantra of "I know other blokes who ca hear it"?

Do not confuse "cannot be measured" with "appears to require the laws of physics to be changed". I have noted before that there are no measurements that explain clearly audible differences inamplifiers. Butthose differences are capable of possible explanation and do not require the laws of physics to be re-written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by julesd68

A very interesting point. If the cable didn't look 'bling' and shiny, and actually looked a bit tatty, would it 'sound' as good? I doubt it!

---

I doubt it too. Once ihave had a chance to test it for myself and my hard earned cash is safe, I fancy a nice big "put your money where your mouth is". But I had not planned to start this thread yet. I planned to try the cables first.

This weekend hopefully :)

Quote:

---

Do not confuse "cannot be measured" with "appears to require the laws of physics to be changed". I have noted before that there are no measurements that explain clearly audible differences inamplifiers. Butthose differences are capable of possible explanation and do not require the laws of physics to be re-written.

---

Sure, Richard, but for me the key lies in what you've written yourself above, which I've highlighted - and specifically in the word "appears". IMO, that is the crux of the matter.

I genuinely don't believe that the laws of physics *are* being changed, when it comes to the claimed efficacy of 'exotic' mains cables; I simply consider that the reason for the improvements many of us can clearly hear, is just not yet properly understood.

In any case, we can debate the 'whys and wherefores' of all this stuff until the cows come home, which only has limited appeal. At the end of the day, most of us here really only care about what gives us the best sounding system we can afford, which in turn allows us to hear our favourite music at its best. Therefore, in that respect, I would no sooner give up using my 'exotic' mains leads, than you would your love of Pink Triangle! ;)

Marco.

On the subject of mains cables there are only two important criteria, BOTH of which have objective supporting evidence:

1.
The total loop resistance between your hi-fi and the local electricity supply sub-station. Differences in total loop resistance of less than 0.01 of an ohm produce a clearly audible difference. There are key areas of sound that are affected:- Bass, whereby the overhang you were blaming the front end/amp/speakers for and you might not have realised you had until it is gone, has been eliminated. Noise floor lowers too.

2.
There is no such thing as a perfect mains cable - fact.

What is also to be considered under this heading is not how "sooper dooper" your fancy bling expensive aftermarket power cable is, but just how SHIT the average freebie 5 amp rated IEC power cable is found in the bottom of the box the hi-fi came in is, or has been purloined from powering your computer.

What you are doing is TAKING OUT the puny pathetic little power cable of indeterminate ancestry and replacing it with a cable that is LESS IMPERFECT than the one you have just removed. This scale of less imperfectness is usually (but not always) commensurate with cash outlay.

Job done.

Can we talk about interesting lady parts now instead? :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Effem

On the subject of mains cables there are only two important criteria, BOTH of which have objective supporting evidence:

1.
The total loop resistance between your hi-fi and the local electricity supply sub-station. Differences in total loop resistance of less than 0.01 of an ohm produce a clearly audible difference. There are key areas of sound that are affected:- Bass, whereby the overhang you were blaming the front end/amp/speakers for and you might not have realised you had until it is gone, has been eliminated. Noise floor lowers too.

......

Can we talk about interesting lady parts now instead? :eyebrows:

---

The loop resistance between your hi-fi and the local electricity supply sub-station is likely to be ~0.3 Ohm, taking into account the presence of the meter and domestic wiring (even if you have a dedicated spur installed for the hi-fi). A change of 0.01 of an Ohm will make no audible difference at all.

Depending on the environment, the biggest difference a mains cable can make is if it is shielded or not.


As to talking about "interesting lady parts" - I think you have the wrong forum. :scratch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Effem

On the subject of mains cables there are only two important criteria, BOTH of which have objective supporting evidence...

---

I'm not aware of any objective evidence of the type you mention but I would be very interested in reading about it. Could you point me toward if please?