Seriously?

Have you ever wondered what review's systems look like? Below are pictures of Robert E. Greene from "The Absolute Sound" two systems.

System 1:

Harbeth speakers on make shift stands, Bryston amp setting on the floor, components stacked on top of one another and a turntable that's on a flimsy looking stand. This can't be the recipe for great sound. Sadly this isn't a joke.

System 2:

Looks to be a Bryston Preamp sitting on top of a Sunfire amp (a H-U-G-E, HUGE no-no because the power supply of the amp MUST be radiating noise into the preamp which contains delicate signals) hooked up to a cheap direct drive turntable and a cheap looking CD player all setting on a fire place mantle.

None of this is to say that those systems can't sound great but the chances are very, very slim. Now, for a few pictures of MY system from a couple of years ago. While not perfect the set up is much closer to what the majority of the audiophile community would consider ideal. Lacking a digital camera this is the best photo that I can provide.

Methodology

Acoustic music is better at diagnosing the sonics of a component simply because the listener has had a chance to hear it in real life. I've always felt that if a component could reproduce the tonality of acoustic instruments accurately, their reproduction of the tonality of electronic instruments must inherently be accurate. However, I would agree that if a trained listener had heard a recording of non-acoustic instruments on a system that is known to be extremely accurate because of it's performance with recordings of acoustic instruments in real space enough times that they could then use that recording with some authority.

Don’t get me wrong it isn’t a bias against rock and pop, or a preference for jazz and classical. It is perfectly acceptable to use acoustic rock as a reference. Drum kits on rock and pop are, as long as they acoustic also a perfectly acceptable instrument to use for evaluation purposes.

While the sound of an electric guitar MIGHT be as complex as a flute, acoustic guitar, or grand piano it is unknowable. By that I mean that unless you were in the recording studio with the guitar player on the day of the original session your understanding of the sound of that guitar can only be in the broadest of terms, not exact terms. There are just too many variables that affect the tone of the guitar. The list of factors that I can think of off of the top of my head are:

1. The Guitar (make, model, and year)
2. The switch positions on said guitar
3. The nob settings of said guitar
4. Custom modifications to the guitar (if any)
5. The foot pedals (not only type but brand)
6. The nob positions on those pedals
7. Any customization of those pedals (if applicable)
8. The Guitar amp (make, model, and age)
9. The setting of knobs and switches on said amp
10. Any customization of the amp (if there are any)
11. Recording mic (model and type)
12. Mic position
13. Tweaks of the mic (if any)
14. Room position of mic
15. Room acoustics
16. String choice on guitar
17. Choice of guitar pick
18. Tube type in guitar amp (if applicable)

Now lets look at the variables for recording a flute:

1. The flute (make model, and year)
2. Recording mic (model and type)
3. Mic position
4. Tweaks of the mic (if any)
5. Room position of mic
6. Room acoustics

Because there are so many variables in the way an electric guitar CAN sound it is completely unsuitable as a reference to determine the accuracy of reproduction. So if a piece of audio gear slightly changes the tonality of electric guitar it’s tough to know because the slightly inaccurate reproduction is still somewhere on the continuum of what an electric guitar MIGHT sound like. It’s pretty obvious that the chance KNOWING in exact terms how a particular performance on electric guitar is supposed to sound is an impossibility. While KNOWING how a flute is supposed to sound in absolute terms, though difficult is possible.

Power To The People

The audibility of power cords is starling! I've been playing around recently with stupid expensive cords and I must say the differences can be shocking (no pun intended). The main argument against power cords being able to create audible difference is that the power cord is NOT in the signal path, this is false. An amplifier, for example simply modulates the power coming out of the wall to produce a larger version of the signal that it receives as an input. Hence the power supply is in the signal path. Hence, in my opinion the power cord IS in the signal path in a very real sense.

Interestingly this theory of mine was helped to form by McIntosh labs who believes that their power supplies are in the signal path and are major contributors to that "MAC sound." What's ironic is that McIntosh doesn't believe in highend speaker cables or interconnects, let alone power cords. Mac has been very public about this belief. Only recently at trade shows did they start using better interconnects and speaker cable, just to "shut people up." The IEC socket of a removable power cord does compromise the connection slightly but allows for much better power cables to be used, a slight step backwards for the possibility of a couple of major steps forwards. But the same cord soldered directly to the power supply versus being removable and connected to an IEC socket would be the best solution.

Other arguments brought against power cords have to do with the fact that the last 6 feet can’t make up for 50 miles of low quality wire between the utility company and our homes. Again, this simply doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. First off, it isn’t the last six feet, it’s the first six feet. The power company doesn’t push power to us, we pull power from the electrical company. If this weren’t the case we would not be able to turn off electrical devices. Second, the power that they are running long distances is different from what we find in our homes. In that form it is much less susceptible to EMI and RFI interference. It is converted at a nearby pole by a transformer before entering our homes. In the walls of our homes the electricity is shielded from stray EMI interference by the conduit through which it is running. So the point that it is most vulnerable to these problems is from the outlet to our components.

Aftermarket power cords differ in a number of ways from stock units

-They are a thicker gauge wire than stock units. All things being equal, the thicker the gauge the faster large amounts of current can be delivered to the component. This higher current capability leads to more controlled, more extended bass. Not to mention better dynamics.

-They have better shielding which helps reject EMI interference. This creates blacker background from which the music emerges. Improving the perception of low level detail. This is not new musical information but information that had previously been obscured. The amplifier is also freed from having to amplify the high frequency hash which gives the system a greater sense of ease.

-The plugs make better physical contact. When dealing with electricity poor physical contact between outlets and the blades of the plug causes the electricity to jump the gap between the two surfaces. This causes heat and when dealing with electricity heat equals resistance. This resistance again slows down current delivery.

Under evaluation are three power cords from Transparent audio. All were used to replace the stock power cord on a Panamax Max 5510 power conditioner, which was set to balanced power. Patricia Barber’s “Love, Put On Your Faces” from her album “Modern Cool” and “Man Over” by Robinella and The CC String Band off of their self titled album were the main tracks used for this series of tests.

Transparent High Performance Power Link:
The sibilance on s and t sounds was much cleaner than with the Panamax stock power cord, which tended to make these sounds more aggressive than is proper. Distinguishing between the original event and the reverberation that followed was also much easier with the HPPL cord. The stock cord tended to smear the transition between these two distinct components of a sound. Bass intergraded with the rest of the music much more seamlessly, and lost the mechanical quality that the stock unit added. The Piano on the Barber track had much more body, it was impossible to mistake it for anything other than a grand piano.

Transparent Power Link Plus:
With this power cable the piano has a greater sense of ease and there is an increase in micro and macro dynamics. The piano sounds less forced and more effortless than it did with the HPPL power cord. Gone is the angular sound that plagued the attack of bass notes, it is replaced with a more naturally rounded tone. Bass notes also have more consistent authority, midbass notes are now closer in weight to deeper bass notes. The cleanliness of sibilance has also taken another step forward.

Transparent Power Link Reference:
Piano notes have greater sustain and thus take longer to decay into a more black background. The weight of midbass notes is greatly improved matching the power of lower bass notes much better than the PLP. The choir sounds like it is made up of more voices, but at the came time it is easier to pick out individual voices in that choir.