"As you know, I'm no fan of Synergistic Research. Until today, I've only read about Mr. Ted Denney III and the demos at audio shows for Synergistic... I can say I have witnessed the antics first hand now. There are these tiny HFT things that get taken on and off the poor Magico speakers. The white tower Atmosphere device is turned on and off to listen for differences. Synergistic cable risers are put on and off with the HFT things stuck on. The whole demo is being done with music from the turntable with the tonearm lifted up and down (not even playing the same segment of the music). We have some Diana Krall "Gee Baby, Ain't I Good To You", and Sinatra "Thanks For The Memory". Seriously, if I were Magico or any of the other reasonable brands, and I cosponsored this room, I'd be embarrassed. At one point, someone asked "what is the basis of this?" and Denney just kept doing his thing and played the music without answering... The fact that magazines like Stereophile and TAS even give this company any coverage all these years is ludicrous! I honestly think the Magico M2 sounded great and the rest of the gear is fine. Too bad the reel-to-reel wasn't playing." Im not going to disagree.
I know and dont care. Have you Listened to his stuff?!?!? F'in crazy good sounding. His outlets are pieces of crap, cheap $30 hospital grade whatever brand. Its doesn't matter, he doesn't care either. He finds "the ones" then treats them and makes them amazing. Same for ALL his gear. Its not about design. It cant be "designed" It can Only be Listened for. He's charging you for his "time" and finding it for you and making it available for easy purchase. What a concept, being paid for your time. And he's not a rich man! He's a crackpot and maybe insane but I love the sound of everything he touches. And thats all I really care about or is my business. His product and others sound great, certainly different. And thats all I care about as well. It is after all a Hobby. And it's a matter of what you justify spending your money on. People say to me im crazy for spending money on a "stereo" while they drive away in their $65k Honda Pickup Truck and live in suburbia
Some while back I tried directly connecting the 12/2 romex from a home run circuit to the Wattgate 320 IEC plug to my main amplifier. Probably against every building code, so it was just temporary. If $$$$ power cords are better, then no cord must be even better. Predictably (to me, at least) it made no difference. Now I’m back to using my DiY 12 gauge cords.
After watching this, I'm gonna replace all my 3rd party power cables with UL listed 14AWG power cables, will also be easier to manage. Main reason for safety.
I'm not about to read this thread from the beginning, but I will say this. I'm very particular about power cables. They must be black. No exceptions. M. M.
Ok, that’s kind of what I figured. It’s a good question. I do actually think that power conditioners can help, but in my mind they’re different and distinct from just considering the power cord. For example, I have had some issues with DC leaking into my mains power which causes my krell amp, specifically, to buzz. Not a massive problem because the amp is in a closest, but I have tried to remedy the problem. Isotek makes a power cord with an integrated filter they claim eliminates DC. I tried one, and it works. But, I realized that they also offer a standalone box to do the same thing that’s quite a bit less expensive. So I just bought the box and went back to using my standard diy power cords.
Ha …. I actually like all my power cords (and speaker cables) to be of uniform appearance. I also don’t like extra lengths laying around on the floor. That is the primary reason I make my own power cords out of good mechanical quality ends and 12 gauge wire. I can craft them to the precise length required and they all look the same (good OCD tonic). Those seem like worthwhile goals to me lol. Otherwise, I’m with the audioholics guy: nonsense.
Only if you have very clean mains electricity coming into your property. Do standard mains electric cables supplied with equipment degrade the sound of the piece of equipment?
I don't doubt that this is basically true. One of the problems, however, is that it is difficult, if not impossible for the vast majority of audiophiles to engage in proper ABX testing. It is typically cost prohibitive, for obvious reasons, and exceedingly few would have access to a sympathetic dealer who would be willing to spend the time setting up comparisons that could, ultimately, eat into his profits. Having said all of that, I have a couple of issues with some of the frequently heard, dogmatic claims revolving around ABX testing. The first is that synergy matters, so being unable to differentiate between two cables (or amps, etc.) on one system is not necessarily a sufficient basis on which to confidently claim that they are indistinguishable. The second is that the classical approach to ABX is dubious. Quick changes from one component to another may allow listeners to distinguish between components with significant differences in the sound that they produce, but for more subtle distinctions, which is far more likely in most cases, I, and many other audiophiles would argue that longer periods of listening, and to familiar material, would likely yield more accurate results. When I audition speakers, for example, there are passages of particular recordings that I know well, some short, some long, that are exceptionally helpful in my efforts to discern strengths and weaknesses. If I were able to use such familiar recordings in an ABX context, and with no artificial time constraints, I would have a much higher level of confidence in the results than if I were required to listen only to brief snippets of music.
Both long term listening and switching in real time/blind ABX are important IMHO. Sanders Sound Systems - Audio Equipment Testing White Paper "The results of ABX testing usually are quite surprising to most audiophiles. They quickly discover that components that meet the BQC always sound identical to each other. Only if components fail the BQC (and many do), will they sound different. Now I understand that many audiophiles will find that hard to believe. But don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. If you don't believe that components that meet the BQC sound identical, then you need to do some well-controlled listening test and prove it to yourself. ".
A good friend who runs an audio company has an interesting option to ABX. Do whatever change you want to listen to (cable, or some other aspect of the system like a different amp) and listen in a relaxed way for a week. Then undo the change and listen again. If there is a difference one way or the other it will become instantly apparent. Swapping quickly between options and trying to perceive differences is both stressful and inaccurate. Quad did a somewhat famous experiment in 1978 where a Quad II valved/tubed power amp, a 303 with capacitor coupled output, and a 405 current dumper were compared blind by a panel including Laurie Fincham (the CTO of KEF), John Crabbe (Editor of HiFi News) and John Borwick (Audio Editor Grammophone) and several others. The conclusion by Quad was that "A sufficient number of assessments were made to satisfy proper statistical analysis. No differences or preferences were detected". In other words in blind listening, the great and the good of audio in 1978 could not hear the difference between a valved/tubed amp and two different flavours of transistor amp. I have personal experience of trying the AB process at a loudspeaker company I worked for in the early 90's. The evaluation room had a black, acoustically transparent curtain so you could not see the speakers, listened to in mono from single speakers (so tonal balance was under test, not imaging). Levels had been carefully matched to remove perceived changes from volume differences. You had a switch box to select between them, and you could chose the music from a wide selection. There was a sheet to fill in. You were never alone just to listen - there was always at least one other person there. Boy was that a stressful process. And I suspect like Quad the results were inconclusive.
