Power Cables. Are they overhyped?
- Thread starter SteveT
- Start date
- Status
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
I don't know Dr Richard bews, or his products, but from that snippet he pointed at nothing about cables that could be improved, so ill put him in with all the others.
Re Mr Sitcom, (sic) and his views on cables, shall I paste in his promise laden puff piece about his objective intentions for hifi plus from when he took over. Good intentions didn't last long... They never do in advert revenue lead businesses.
Re Mr Sitcom, (sic) and his views on cables, shall I paste in his promise laden puff piece about his objective intentions for hifi plus from when he took over. Good intentions didn't last long... They never do in advert revenue lead businesses.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
I'm not sure I follow how the "high frequency performance" of the dielectric of mains cable will help it to supply 240v 50hz. Wouldn't that improve its ability to conduct RF? Is that a good thing?
Lee T
pfm Member
What hifi & Hifi choice used to give slating reviews back when i could be arsed to read them so this doesn't really wash.
Obviously another biased assumption based on untruths.
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
Of course, he used to post here. Not sure when he stopped.
AIUI his view was that his readers DEMAND cable reviews and so he has to provide them. I do not say this in his defense.
Highlighted bit. He believes and may
In other words he has no evidence. A more persuading response from an academic would have been, "I have shown with these scientific/technical tests, which have been replicated by peers, that......"
If RF is the issue then purpose designed off the shelf filters will do a better job than 1m of hocus pocus cable
Whaleblue
Southbound
But drilling pedals does cut weight. There's some simple science involved to prove it! A weight saving strategy in a performance car is all about incremental gains - and if it's a money no object strategy it would be odd to arbitrarily draw a line that says that the last few ounces that could be saved aren't worth it.
The 500HP will also have been hard won by incremental gains, balanced with considerations for reliability and longevity etc.
But I also take your point. Expensive mains cables developed by Ferrari would find a market, no doubt!
Julf
Facts are our friends
When was the last time you read an audiophile magazine? When was the last time you saw a slating review?
So please give us hard facts.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
If by "improved" he meant a better defined and lower loss dielectric, then yes, it might then "improve" the ability for RFI to flow along the cable with lower loss. Thus, perhaps not what people want here. However the problem is that no explanation is given by *what* is meant by "improved".
It might mean "costs more". It might mean "whatever reduces RFI even though I have no idea what that entails". It might mean something else. No details given.
Maybe the quote is taken out a context that gave the explanation we'd need. But as it stands, it isn't a statment I'd expect from an academic.
It would be more plausible to argue that "cheap PVC is a great choice as all the plasticisers and crap in it, and the way its dielectric properties vary randomly along the cable help to absorb or scatter any RFI". - i.e. cheaper is better. But I'm not sure this would be a message that'd be popular amongst the sellers of fancy cables.
But who knows, it might just be true... 8-]Martyn Miles
pfm Member
Just plug in and listen to the music...
The weight savings from drilling the pedal is real but if you compare the weight of a Ferrari to that of a Lotus, you'll see why people think it's lip service. The drilling also makes the the parallel look more "sporty technical".
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
It is a never ending source of amazement to me how many cables are sold along the lines of blah blah dirty mains blah blah rfi therefore better/ more expensive conductor. Could you do this stuff without the "scientific" bullshit? Could it just work with pretty girls in the picture like most advertising?If by "improved" he meant a better defined and lower loss dielectric, then yes, it might then "improve" the ability for RFI to flow along the cable with lower loss. Thus, perhaps not what people want here. However the problem is that no explanation is given by *what* is meant by "improved".
It might mean "costs more". It might mean "whatever reduces RFI even though I have no idea what that entails". It might mean something else. No details given.
Maybe the quote is taken out a context that gave the explanation we'd need. But as it stands, it isn't a statment I'd expect from an academic.
It would be more plausible to argue that "cheap PVC is a great choice as all the plasticisers and crap in it, and the way its dielectric properties vary randomly along the cable help to absorb or scatter any RFI". - i.e. cheaper is better. But I'm not sure this would be a message that'd be popular amongst the sellers of fancy cables.
In my darker moments I wonder whether Peter Belt was a genius. If I had a pile of money to play around with I might set up a hifi company selling products with a large prime number of holes all over the case, and small plastic blocks (probably with dimensions based on the golden ratio which you can buy one by one to stick in the holes improve the sound. Once people had filled up all the holes I would bring out even more special blocks based on new research.
Quite a lot of the budget would have to go on advertising, but i imagine Roy Gregory would be up for it.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Well sort of, but if I'm completely honest I enjoy ridiculing the people who buy the cables too. Sorry.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
I bought expensive mains cables and interconnects , pre Purité , I had read the reviews, believed the salesman and thought I heard an improvement, never left any equipment on the underground though!
Keith
radamel
Music Fiend
You're reminding me of a well known Schopenhauer's quote.
Lee T
pfm Member
Forum gold
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Was it
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"
or was it "it is far easier to fool a puffed up idiot who thinks he's intelligent than it is a well-brought up simpleton."
I may have made one of those up.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I hestiate for two basic reasons.
1) In some cases they might be right, and I'd be wrong to ridicule them. I may *doubt* their *beliefs* but can't take that as a perfect guide.
2) I have a specific concern about the technobollocks used to flog things. People who *don't* understand the relevant physics or enginering (or physiology or psychology) can quite understandably fall for it because they have no clear reason to decide it *is* technobollocks.
Thus my main interest in such areas is to focus on what looks like technobollocks and see if it falls into either of the following catagories:
A) Pure Technobollocks. i.e. clearly in conflict with established physics and engineering and the mass of evidence that is built upon.
B) MOOM. This is "Mountains Out Of Molehills". A more subtle ploy which takes an absurdly tiny 'effect' and presents it as the 'reason' for some claimed change.
C) A genuine point that confirms with science and may well be useful, even if marginal.
Then try to document and explain the details. I can then point people at those details and *they* can decide how they wish to judge the matter.
If they then then decide to still believe in, say, (A), that's their lookout. They have been informed. At least I can say I tried to give them a way to assess the 'scientific' basis for themself.
- Status