Power Cables. Are they overhyped?

[Dowser]

C'mon Jim - that post is far too reasoned and measured for an Audio Room cable thread!

 

[Tony L]

<moderating>

I've just received a very firmly worded PM from Alan Sircom/Hi-Fi+ magazine/Absolute Multimedia (UK) Ltd/Nextscreen LLC relating to posts made by Keith Cooper of Purite Audio Limited and demanding these posts be deleted. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed by the officious tone as I've met Alan several time and wouldn't expect something bordering on a threat from him. I have deleted the posts in question, as I would have done had I recieved a polite informal request. I also request we all steer clear of this aspect from now on. FWIW I do not agree with Keith's stance on most things audio and I think his behaviour on this site regularly falls below the basic AUP requirements let alone decent behaviour from someone claiming to be an industry professional, so I deeply resent being dragged into this as none of it is my argument. I have to admit I have in the past given Keith a little more latitude that I would a regular non-trade member as everyone knows who he is and where to address any legal correspondence (hint: Alan, it isn't to me!).

Anyway, that is how the land lies and I have no intention of getting drawn into any argument between Keith and HiFi+. May I request Keith posts any further negativity or personal slurs on his own website/blog.

 

[Julf]

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.

To quote one of my friends (retired Chief Scientist of a (former) pretty major technology company):

"The point isn't certainty, it's reliability. If you really believe Physics, they you don't believe in elemental certainty. But Scientific Thinking is the most reliable way we have for knowing what we know and what we don't know. The job of Science is to identify the best explanation we currently have. Not certainty, and certainly not revealed truth, but the best explanation we have now. That is a strong statement because that explanation must not only explain everything we currently know in that regime but it must also accurately predict things we don't already know so we can go forth and check it, falsifying it if possible, and do a better job than some other explanation.

Certainty? No. Quantum Mechanics took care of that. But yes to Reliability. That's as good as it gets, but it gets better all the time. Not such a bad deal after all."

 

[Alan Sircom]

Just to say I am extraordinarily sorry that I had to make such a heavy-handed demand on the site, but my hands were 'somewhat' tied in this matter.

I don't post to forums outside of our own site now because of that 'somewhat', too.

 

[Howdy]

Alan should just put Keith on the ignore list as everybody except Ragamuffin did already and drop by pfm more often. He seems a cool and eloquent guy and we all enjoy reading his posts.

 

[whatsnext]

Keith is not on my Ignore list, I can think of others who might be. If they get quoted you still see what they said.

HiFi mags they could be

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan should just put Keith on the ignore list as everybody except Ragamuffin did already and drop by pfm more often. He seems a cool and eloquent guy and we all enjoy reading his posts.

Yep, the problem was that a couple of people noticed this on my behalf, and one emailed one of the hifiplus.com addresses that doesn't go to me, but further up the chain. Normally, I'd brush such things off, or if really naughty, have a quiet word.

But, after a 3am call from 'Big Jim McFisty, Attorney at Law' over in Texas, who had done a whois search on the site and was threatening to go all Trump on the website providers in California, I had to go in hard.

Once again, I apologise.

* Big Jim McFisty is not the name of a real Attorney. Covering my backside, now!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I can't (and shouldn't) make any comment on the case above or wrt any particular magazine or case. But I will make a general comment abour consumer mags in general.

One of my big regrets about audio magazines overall is that over the decades they seem to have become increasingly reluctant to publish technical investigation articles that explain the relevant science and engineering in sufficient depth to aid readers to form a scientifically reliable view of claims that may be technobabble.

If you can compare issues of magazines from some decades ago with now, you can see what I mean.

I can understand there are reasons for this. Put simply, many/most readers won't want to know these days, and thus it may deter readership. We live in an age when most people have no idea how the 'magic boxes' they use actually work in much detail.

But it does leave people in a situation where they may lack the info to judge some claims in terms of the implied science, engineering.

The good news, of course, is that's why TBL invented the web.

The bad news, though, is that also means lots of technobollocks can also appear on the web, leaving those with no relevant background to sift salt from sand.

So an an ex-ed-biz person, it isn't a situation I'm completely happy about. My impression is that what has happened is that what began as a technical hobby has morphed into a consumer area. Thus the change of tack and content.

 

[SteveS1]

Bit disappointed if not surprised by Tony's post, might have been nicer to receive some technical discussion or validation of claims made for products rather than threats. Smacks of ladies protesting too much. Subscription renewal decision just got easy courtesy of Big Jim.

 

[adamdea]

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.

Quite right too. And I think that what you do is very valuable.

I'm just in a slightly childish mood. Must be Spring.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Quite right too. And I think that what you do is very valuable.

I'm just in a slightly childish mood. Must be Spring.

I cut the grass this morning for the first time this year! So the evidence wrt spring agrees with you.

The snag about explaining things, though, is that sometimes the scientific explanation isn't trivial to follow for those who *don't* already have a relevant background. Again, I can see this is a reason why magazine may shy away. But it does contrast with the situation back in the days when many hifi mag readers knew which end of a soldering iron *not* to hold.

 

[adamdea]

I can't (and shouldn't) make any comment on the case above or wrt any particular magazine or case. But I will make a general comment abour consumer mags in general.

One of my big regrets about audio magazines overall is that over the decades they seem to have become increasingly reluctant to publish technical investigation articles that explain the relevant science and engineering in sufficient depth to aid readers to form a scientifically reliable view of claims that may be technobabble.

If you can compare issues of magazines from some decades ago with now, you can see what I mean.

I can understand there are reasons for this. Put simply, many/most readers won't want to know these days, and thus it may deter readership. We live in an age when most people have no idea how the 'magic boxes' they use actually work in much detail.

But it does leave people in a situation where they may lack the info to judge some claims in terms of the implied science, engineering.

The good news, of course, is that's why TBL invented the web.

The bad news, though, is that also means lots of technobollocks can also appear on the web, leaving those with no relevant background to sift salt from sand.

So an an ex-ed-biz person, it isn't a situation I'm completely happy about. My impression is that what has happened is that what began as a technical hobby has morphed into a consumer area. Thus the change of tack and content.

Without wanting to be too simplistic, I don't really think this is a mystery. Hifi used to be an industry operating at the gee whiz cutting edge of technology. Genuinely better engineering lead to noticeably better results. At the electronics end this stopped a long time ago really. The hobby has rolled on though and demands further gee whizz advances in "science" which also yield "noticeably better" results. And lo! It's not easy to get far with a genuine interest in technology and a measured approach to the contribution it may play to audible results

 

[adamdea]

I cut the grass this morning for the first time this year! So the evidence wrt spring agrees with you.

The snag about explaining things, though, is that sometimes the scientific explanation isn't trivial to follow for those who *don't* already have a relevant background. Again, I can see this is a reason why magazine may shy away. But it does contrast with the situation back in the days when many hifi mag readers knew which end of a soldering iron *not* to hold.

erm, presumably I told you my o level electronics story!

 

[Alan Sircom]

Bit disappointed if not surprised by Tony's post, might have been nicer to receive some technical discussion or validation of claims made for products rather than threats. Smacks of ladies protesting too much. Subscription renewal decision just got easy courtesy of Big Jim.

I'm happy to discuss our methodology, the epistemic basis of that methodology, and the results of that methodology.

And I'm not at all concerned as to whether you agree or disagree with those results, the methodology, or the epistemology. All fair and frank discussion is worth examining, even if there is no possible middle ground.

Our reputations do not stand on fall on whether you agree with what we claim, or even if you agree with our right to make such claims. They rest upon whether or not we are perceived to hold to those claims honestly.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Without wanting to be too simplistic, I don't really think this is a mystery. Hifi used to be an industry operating at the gee whiz cutting edge of technology. Genuinely better engineering lead to noticeably better results. At the electronics end this stopped a long time ago really.

Yes and no.

For something like an amplifier, yes. In my view well made amp designs from a few decades ago can work fine even now. Although here the change might something like going to 'switching' designs to give higher efficiency as engineers learn how to do this whilst dealing with the snags that hampered early attempts. (I wonder what role mains cables would have with an amp that *generates* huge amounts of *internal* 'RFI'? )

But for loudspeakers and rooms, the situation remains complicated and highly variable. I suspect people would be *much* better served by learning more about that and how to alter their setup to optimise results than by buying a mains cable. And this is an area where people at home *can* experiment relatively easily if they want to.

To me modern systems have two weak links. One is the input. If the CD/LP/download has been crapped up by 'experts' you start off down a hole you may not be able to climb out of. The other is the room/speaker arrangement. This is a variable as well as a preference and is complex, but something people *can* tweak and hope to get improvements from. *If* they have some understanding of what is involved and put in the time and effort.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

erm, presumably I told you my o level electronics story!

If so, I've forgotten. So here's your chance...

 

[adamdea]

If so, I've forgotten. So here's your chance...

Ah, well I never completed in my practical project (a reaction timer) as a result of burning myself by picking up the soldering iron at the less-easily-handled end.

I assumed that was a dig!

 

[SteveS1]

I'm happy to discuss our methodology, the epistemic basis of that methodology, and the results of that methodology.

And I'm not at all concerned as to whether you agree or disagree with those results, the methodology, or the epistemology. All fair and frank discussion is worth examining, even if there is no possible middle ground.

Our reputations do not stand on fall on whether you agree with what we claim, or even if you agree with our right to make such claims. They rest upon whether or not we are perceived to hold to those claims honestly.

Alan, of course you can claim what you like. Your reputation as far as I am concerned as a reader does indeed rest upon whether you are percieved to hold to those claims honestly. Perhaps you can expand on the part of this where threatening an open forum with legal action helps the perception?

 

[Whaleblue]

...
But for loudspeakers and rooms, the situation remains complicated and highly variable. I suspect people would be *much* better served by learning more about that and how to alter their setup to optimise results than by buying a mains cable. And this is an area where people at home *can* experiment relatively easily if they want to.

To me modern systems have two weak links. One is the input. If the CD/LP/download has been crapped up by 'experts' you start off down a hole you may not be able to climb out of. The other is the room/speaker arrangement. This is a variable as well as a preference and is complex, but something people *can* tweak and hope to get improvements from. *If* they have some understanding of what is involved and put in the time and effort.

I'm sure we know that Adam was referring to the electronics side of things.

The problem I perceive is that there is a lot of effort involved in tweaking rooms and speakers - and that doesn't play well to the tweakers mind-set. Hence the dogged determination to hear differences that science strongly suggests aren't there.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Ah, well I never completed in my practical project (a reaction timer) as a result of burning myself by picking up the soldering iron at the less-easily-handled end.

I assumed that was a dig!

No! It was one of my standard jokes.

I used to run a teaching lab for 1st year undergrads to learn rthe basics of practical electronics. (The details are still on the Scots Guide.) The soldering irons provided all had red handles.

I used to point out that the end they should hold was the *red* end despite the other looking as it it wasn't hot.

I also used to warn them that if they dropped the iron *not* to try and catch it.

The irons used to be in the spiral holders. That helped keep fingers away when the iron was unused. But alas the spiral was *just* open enough for the occasional student to get the lead though...