"Did I say you have to? I am just asking how often have tests been done the way being done in the case we're discussing. You say tests have been done in the past, I just asked how many were done testing the time domain. You can say a number, or a percentage, you don't have to experiment or gather data.
I did raise a question about your claim that we're putting "blind faith in that single study", in the form of asking just how relevant those "hundreds of other ones that have been trying to prove the opposite" are to the nordost experiments. To prove the opposite of what nordost is doing, you have to test the same thing and get the opposite conclusion. You must test the time domain. Can you tell me what percentage of those hundreds of tests have tested the thing nordost is testing? If it is not testing the same thing, it is not trying to prove the opposite. I hope you understand, I don't in any way want you to do any experiments to prove anything."
My apologies. I misread your sentence and thought you were asking me how much times 'I' have personally done these experiments..
I think you misinterpreted my point as well though.. The hundreds of other contradictory reports don't serve to disprove the Nordost study. The hundreds of studies support the fact that people can't hear a difference between two cables or between two reasonably-made power sources. Studies showing that people CAN hear differences between two identical equipment when they think the equipment has been changed. These hundreds of tests don't disprove the nordost test, but the nordost test doesn't disprove those other hundreds of tests either.
How can you say we should keep an open mind when you're only looking at one side of the argument?
And you make it sound like measuring something in the "time domain" is something new and revolutionary...
excuse me if I'm wrong but what they're doing seems like extremely basic/common stuff.. simple null test... subtraction and addition.. done all the time. I actually did come across a test very similar to the Nordost one, using recording/studio equipment.. but in that case, the test was used to prove that there was no difference.
"Two words: preliminary report."
Do they plan on releasing an actual report, or just feed us enough information to stir something up?
The preliminary report by itself doesn't inspire too much confidence, but they might sway my mind if they can actually put together a accurate, complete, and well-written report.
JamesL I see your point, but you make a simple component like a power cable more cumbersome than it really is. If you are trying to save money and only purchase on proven facts and not what sounds good to you it will not be a fun hobby. Power cables are easy to deal with. I would first define the strengths and weakness's of your gear and find a character in a power cable to compliment your rig. For example: My tube amp can get a little too warm and fuzzy for my taste. I made a power cable with SPC and Rhodium connectors to deal with that. I learned the characteristics of the different metals used to make power cables and made one to suit my needs.
hey big poppa.. No, it doesn't seem like you see the point.
I'm not "-saving money by only purchasing on proven facts and not what sounds good to me-"
I simply don't bother fiddling around and doing ridiculous stuff with my power cord.
When you eat a meal, do you enjoy it better by switching out and auditioning the silverware? Sure, I guess you can argue that some silverware and metallurgy imparts a different flavor on your food, but most of the appeal of choosing nice flatware/dinnerware is in the presentation.
Ask anyone else ... which one of us is making .. and let me quote you, "a simple component like a power cable more cumbersome than it really is" I certainly don't think its me.