advertisement


Aftermarket Power Cord Recommendation for Naim\Pardo

twochannelguy said:
At Synergistic Research we absolutely keep track of signal directionality in our fuses, it goes in the direction of the letter flow on the fuse. Left to right. But we can’t however predict how this directionality will interact with any given circuit, we simply do not have the resources to evaluate directionality for all components on the market today. No company does. But as for directionality in the fuse, it funs in the direction of the lettering on the fuse and is 100% consistent from Fuse to Fuse.

Yours in music, Ted Denney
Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.
Click to expand...

Are Synergistic Research somewhere where their electrical supply is DC?
 
Phyztech said:
you see, you’re guessing instead of actual researching for yourself
Click to expand...
It is a turn of phrase...geeee...just do the null test yourself and come back with the results...

If all you have is picking at words to deflect from providing little to the discussion....
 
chiily said:
So it seems.

And simply disregard what we were discussing above, seems like a theme.

😂😂😂😂😂😂
Click to expand...
"discussing" seems like a very generous term - this implies that it might lead somewhere - the constant restating of utterly irreconcilable points of view, whilst showing admirable levels of stamina in the participants, is rather tiring for everyone else....

Perhaps we should agree some basic categories so we know where we stand:

A - If I can't measure it/explain it using a current scientific model that I can understand, it must be imaginary/impossible - it's all a mass delusion and clever marketing to the gullible - I am above such nonsense, and save myself money in the process

B - I have a reasonable understanding of scientific methodology - I keep an open mind, and I'm happy to experiment with cables etc - If I don't notice a difference, I move on. If I do notice a difference, or perhaps an improvement, then I am curious as to what might cause this, but ultimately realise that I am not building a system for the pleasure of my oscilloscope etc and stick with it 😉

C - I spend my entire time online chasing the latest system "enhancements" irrespective of cost - I have absolute faith in the marketing departments of all the major cable companies - I believe that if a component costs more, it must be better, and I will relentlessly defend my position

"I hope this helps" as people on forums are fond of saying 🙂
 
MotherSky said:
A - If I can't measure it/explain it using a current scientific model that I can understand, it must be imaginary/impossible - it's all a mass delusion and clever marketing to the gullible - I am above such nonsense, and save myself money in the process
Click to expand...
I've seen that too; we all have. It says that something can't exist unless there's a parallel explanation for it. It's remarkable how unscientific the audio scientists are.
 
Filian said:
I've seen that too; we all have. It says that something can't exist unless there's a parallel explanation for it. It's remarkable how unscientific the audio scientists are.
Click to expand...
I've not seen that here. Certainly nowhere near my own views. But one gets used to being misrepresented :-(
 
Filian said:
I've seen that too; we all have. It says that something can't exist unless there's a parallel explanation for it. It's remarkable how unscientific the audio scientists are.
Click to expand...
And likewise there is no tangible proof otherwise. I don't think I've seen the results of a properly run, double blind listening test, that conclusively proved that mains cables made a difference. If there have been I bet they haven't been systemically repeated with the same results....If you can find some peer reviewed cases many people would be ready to change their views, me included. We are all ears :)

You're fighting a huge amount of measurable evidence, with no collective, repeatable evidence to counter it in an area that isn't at the very edge of astronomy, or high energy particle physics where theories abound.

Anyway...
 
chiily said:
And likewise there is no tangible proof otherwise.
Click to expand...
Over the decades usable listener patterns absolutely have emerged and have even been cataloged.

What has not emerged over the course and history of formal science is evidence that an absence of data is a marker for there being no observed phenomenon. Also, ignorance of X does not nullify X or the scientific endeavor would vanish.
chiily said:
I don't think I've seen the results of a properly run, double blind listening test, that conclusively proved that mains cables made a difference.
Click to expand...
"Properly run" really begs the question. Meanwhile we have those patterns of use and to credibly refute them you'll have to credibly cite your work that humanity suffers a wild myopia or the objectivist's favorite fallacy, an outright mass delusion driving us to such parallel conclusions.
chiily said:
If there have been I bet they haven't been systemically repeated with the same results....If you can find some peer reviewed cases many people would be ready to change their views, me included. We are all ears
Click to expand...
Not as far as I've seen. Demands for these magical proofs built on clinical testing apparatuses are as rife as they are preemptively intolerant, not just of the listener but for the formal definition of science.
chiily said:
You're fighting a huge amount of measurable evidence,
Click to expand...
I am?
chiily said:
with no collective, repeatable evidence to counter it in an area that isn't at the very edge of astronomy, or high energy particle physics where theories abound.

Anyway...
Click to expand...
The armchair objectivist doesn't even grant the complexities of electrical grounding structures in nested components. The (in)audibility of distortion per location, type, spectrum, and magnitude. The complete nature of loudspeaker behaviors. The audibility of active circuits. Of passive components. And on and on.

In 2024 we live in an era of measurement bias, where assumptions about data and the limits of that data compete for objectivist favor when neither even have, to use your word, a proper working context.

This has been known for decades. Also demanding that forced clinical competition trials overrule a century of regular, natural user progress along fairly repeatable, working terrain isn't a compelling position.
 
chiily said:
...is there anything in particular you are pointing at wrt mains cables?
Click to expand...
That's the point; there is no particular conclusion for any general category - mains cables being a very general category - because the local system is a complex one. The entire nest has to be evaluated by all electrical means, a task no scientific armchair objectivist I know of has attempted.

So we trial and listen, audio bohemians that we surely must be.
 
Filian said:
That's the point; there is no particular conclusion for any general category - mains cables being a very general category - because the local system is a complex one. The entire nest has to be evaluated by all electrical means, a task no scientific armchair objectivist I know of has attempted.

So we trial and listen, audio bohemians that we surely must be.
Click to expand...
You miss the point, but hey...I don't care, just keep hopping from one point to another. :)

Anytime you want to link those blind tests up...
 
Filian said:
Properly run" really begs the question. Meanwhile we have those patterns of use and to credibly refute them you'll have to credibly cite your work that humanity suffers a wild myopia or the objectivist's favorite fallacy, an outright mass delusion driving us to such parallel conclusions.
Click to expand...
You write copy as a job?

Properly here, means repeatable and minimising variables, a simple technique.
 
1da99fa94fe791a22e82920c938ce197b69002cdebfc5738469e1df1131fef74_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top