Don't stoop to ad hominem ... You are above that
When posts are too ambiguous we must guess the intentions of the poster, specially of those who are fluent in latin....
Don't stoop to ad hominem ... You are above that
When posts are too ambiguous we must guess the intentions of the poster, specially of those who are fluent in latin....
You measured a 40% amplifier output deficit purely because of a mains cable!
That I would like to see, did you check the batteries in your DVM?
Keith.
So did the amp actually output 40% less power with the "high loss" AC cord? Seems like a bit of a stretch.
lol! -the batteries were fine.You measured a 40% amplifier output deficit purely because of a mains cable!
That I would like to see, did you check the batteries in your DVM?
Keith.
It went from 140 watts to 100 watts. . . . .
Well said and your statement is applicable to both the O and S crowd. Simply substitute "subjectivist" with "objectivist" and you have the counter position.
Best.
All that and I get a simple math problem wrong. Sheesh. . . .
All that and I get a simple math problem wrong. Sheesh.
The cord in question would run warm when it was operated over a period of time. It was a generic cable, rated at 15 amps.
I've seen plenty of cables that warm up at their connectors. That is never a good thing- not only is it not the safest thing, you are guaranteed a voltage drop on the connection.
Well, the Head-Fi thread esldude (and now you) refer to actually well illustrates IMHO the problem with the attitude of many so-called objectivists.
That thread is about a device called HOT that SR claims improves the headphone listening experience by "getting the sound out of your head". The tear down in post #24 showed that the device consisted of nothing more than three silver wires with pieces of foil and a powdery substance later identified as silicon dioxide, leading to dismissive comments by some people that the evidence was in that the product could not possibly work as claimed. However, in post #396, somebody with a better technical background (in this case, an electrical engineer), pointed out that the device appears to be from an electrical standpoint a simple 3-pole capacitor and that capacitors can induce a phase or delay shift in the left and right channel that could indeed lead to a widening of the perceived soundstage.
The problem I think this illustrates is the wrong absolute belief by some objectivists that they have a complete theoretical model of a complex physical phenomenon that they can use to completely dismiss empirical evidence by those who try a product and can hear an effect. While discussion of the theoretical underpinning of an audio product is always valuable and interesting, it is this presumptuous attitude that I personally find completely off-putting.
To be clear, I have not heard the HOT and thus have absolutely no opinion of it one way or another.
I doubt the capacitance in that configuration is enough to matter at all at audio frequencies. Anyone with a HOT could measure the capacitance with a multi-meter and get an idea. In any case, they have arranged for one to be tested for its effects when transferring signal next week. We'll know after that if it does anything. As for post #24 showing expectation bias, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Like objective approaches usually, one can check it against known factors of electrical signal transmission. When someone does this it looks like it would do nothing. But to be sure it is going to be competently measured for effect. My guess with what I have seen is that it will do nothing audible to the signal. In a few days we'll know.
I do find the faith in the company and product so high that a defense is made for such a product is rather amazing at this point.
Yes, I agree, so long as the Home Depot cable has good bandwidth.
In my original post I was careful to point out that the cord need not be expensive. But if you want good connectors that don't heat up and you are in the business of selling power cords, its going to cost around $150 minimum. In the pantheon of power cords available in high end audio, that is a drop in the bucket.
I doubt the capacitance in that configuration is enough to matter at all at audio frequencies. Anyone with a HOT could measure the capacitance with a multi-meter and get an idea. In any case, they have arranged for one to be tested for its effects when transferring signal next week. We'll know after that if it does anything. As for post #24 showing expectation bias, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Like objective approaches usually, one can check it against known factors of electrical signal transmission. When someone does this it looks like it would do nothing. But to be sure it is going to be competently measured for effect. My guess with what I have seen is that it will do nothing audible to the signal. In a few days we'll know.
I do find the faith in the company and product so high that a defense is made for such a product is rather amazing at this point.
Actually not at all would the statement apply both ways.
(...) Care should be taken to ensure that one has a complete understanding of all possible mechanisms through which a device could function before using a theoretical argument to dismiss empirical evidence to the contrary.
Wise words. However since the disagreements start in the capabilities, objectives and methods of stereo sound reproduction we will never reach an agreement on "all possible mechanisms".
The fact that additional testing is being conducted to determine whether the capacitance is sufficient does reflect the fact that the derisive dismissal following the tear down in post #24 was premature, hence a reflection of a bias. And finding that the capacitance is insufficient will not rule out the possibility of an alternative mechanism.
And to be clear once again, I am not defending the product or the company, but arguing about the approach. Care should be taken to ensure that one has a complete understanding of all possible mechanisms through which a device could function before using a theoretical argument to dismiss empirical evidence to the contrary.