Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Less Loss Cable... Seriously Lets Get Some Objective Feed Back from our Sound Science Pals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Less Loss Cable... Seriously Lets Get Some Objective Feed Back from our Sound Science Pals

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 

http://www.lessloss.com/dfpc-series-p-213.html?zenid=sj2vtnbhe76a9on5gfltt73gf7

 

Intrigued by just how SEXY it looks I read over their article and... I have to say... SOUND science guys... your thoughts please :D 

 

The cheap skate in me says BS, the audiophile cheap skate in my says COAXIAL RCA INTERCONNECTORS FOREVER [nothing like $5 for 10 feet] 

 

And lastly the ever hungry knowledge consuming BRAIN in me wonders... does it really work :O 

post #2 of 33

Rather than discussing the science or perhaps lack of it I would simply remark that I don't see any controlled listening tests on the site.

 

If I was interested in a near $600 power cable I would insist on some properly proctored listening tests first, not made up or dubious/irrelevant graphs not subjective reviews, not pseudoscience explanations... I would want some actual hard and repeatable evidence. If they want to lend a cable to UltMusicSnob and he can ABX their cable (under controlled conditions) against a kettle lead I might give them some credence

 

We've been through this loop before with VD (Virtual Dynamics) and dodgy studies...

 

If this cable is that good it will be trivial for the manufacturer to provide some listening test data !

post #3 of 33

Wow, if you're that much scared by high frequency noise riding on the power supply cable, why not use actual filtering components?

 

How much attenuation of high frequencies are they really getting via skin effect...? (I mean, more so than you get in a standard power cord. What was the treatment again?)


Edited by mikeaj - 9/21/13 at 1:44pm
post #4 of 33

These are just my own personal priorities for "What To Spend $535 On".

 

1) More Music Recordings

2) If your speakers cost less than $2000, put this in your "Fund for $2000 Speakers"

3) More Music Recordings

4) Room treatments

5) More Music Recordings

6) Tickets to 4 live concerts

7) Replacement styluses for the turntable, hyperelliptical

8) More Music Recordings

 

etc.

 

Didn't have room for cables. Maybe next year...:wink:

post #5 of 33

^ Sounds about right. ;)

 

Actually it's about entirely items 1), 3), 5) and 8) for me right now, though 2) could use some work as one of my speakers is acting up (and getting to the problematic part is quite a pain).

post #6 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post
 

Wow, if you're that much scared by high frequency noise riding on the power supply cable, why not use actual filtering components?

 

How much attenuation of high frequencies are they really getting via skin effect...? (I mean, more so than you get in a standard power cord. What was the treatment again?)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltMusicSnob View Post
 

These are just my own personal priorities for "What To Spend $535 On".

 

1) More Music Recordings

2) If your speakers cost less than $2000, put this in your "Fund for $2000 Speakers"

3) More Music Recordings

4) Room treatments

5) More Music Recordings

6) Tickets to 4 live concerts

7) Replacement styluses for the turntable, hyperelliptical

8) More Music Recordings

 

etc.

 

Didn't have room for cables. Maybe next year...:wink:

 

First of all I'm not scared lol, 

 
secondly there is NO WAY IN hell I'd EVER buy one of those lol, as you mentioed I have MUCH better things to buy and lastly
 
the listening tests... me gusta! And ur right, I saw no REAL graphs or any hard data, just some vague pictures and what not 
post #7 of 33

Oh, sorry, I meant "you" in the general sense. "One" if you please. Or "they" (the salesmen).

 

 

You know, I also think they're missing an opportunity to sell longer cables. With the other pseudoscience built up, they have a case for making things longer, so why not get buyers to go for increased lengths and more profits for them?

post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post
 

Oh, sorry, I meant "you" in the general sense. "One" if you please. Or "they" (the salesmen).

 

 

You know, I also think they're missing an opportunity to sell longer cables. With the other pseudoscience built up, they have a case for making things longer, so why not get buyers to go for increased lengths and more profits for them?

xD I think even they have some sense of guilt hindering them 

post #9 of 33

How about a power cable that needs its own power supply?     US$3,000 for a five foot length. 

 

http://www.synergisticresearch.com/element-series/element-cts-digital-ac-cord/

 

Edited to get the link to work properly.


Edited by BlindInOneEar - 9/22/13 at 8:14pm
post #10 of 33

It's quite simple:

 

These guys makes scientific claims. The burden of proof is on them. They don't provide any evidence.

 

All they provide is marketing material, so I guess they hope for gullible people to buy their stuff. Choice supportive biases like post-purchase rationalization is apparently enough "evidence" for some people.

post #11 of 33

You're more generous than I am.  I've read over this page twice and I'll be darned if I can figure out where the "scientific claims" come in despite all the pretty pictures.

 

http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/galileo-series/

 

One point they do highlight is the seeming audiophile belief that an audio wave form can be infinitely parsed.  In a practical world this seems to me to be silly on its face.  What say the wise minds on this forum?   

post #12 of 33

Like before, he (?) makes quite a few claims with NOTHING to back them up.

 

 

But, as I expected, it's the "let's BS people with what sounds like science so they think that my products are the result of science and therefore work" tactics. I also wanted to write: "I'm missing the quantum woo woo in the article", but guess what, it's there.

We see the same woo woo in, for example, quantum healing ... it's pseudo-scientific gibberish.

 

 

The problems start when people really buy into this nonsense..

post #13 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

Like before, he (?) makes quite a few claims with NOTHING to back them up.

 

 

But, as I expected, it's the "let's BS people with what sounds like science so they think that my products are the result of science and therefore work" tactics. I also wanted to write: "I'm missing the quantum woo woo in the article", but guess what, it's there.

We see the same woo woo in, for example, quantum healing ... it's pseudo-scientific gibberish.

 

 

The problems start when people really buy into this nonsense..

 

I figured as much, the "pusedo Science" sense was tingling as I read the article. Still.. it's a sexy power cable. Wonder if mono price can make me a one for a uhh 97% discount ;3 

post #14 of 33

How often do you look at your power cables? I never look at them since they're pretty much hidden. Anyway, they look like this:

 

 

based on IEC 60309. Transfers 230 Vrms perfectly fine...

post #15 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

How often do you look at your power cables? I never look at them since they're pretty much hidden. Anyway, they look like this:

 

 

based on IEC 60309. Transfers 230 Vrms perfectly fine...

Actually I have cords running up to my amps which sit on a desk, and while the neatly tuck away... I wouldn't mind a glowy red power cord on the end of my amp for extra cool factors. But $500... yea no thanks 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Less Loss Cable... Seriously Lets Get Some Objective Feed Back from our Sound Science Pals