# Dissecting a Virtual Dynamics Basic Power Cord (photos included)



## jude

Since I posted about having dissected a Virtual Dynamics Basic Power Cord that MooGoesTheCow gave me, I've been receiving many messages asking me what I found.

 As I stated earlier, this post isn't intended as any sort of exposé, but it was very interesting. Though Virtual Dynamics only charges $34.95 for this cable, their web site does state that it *"is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories,"* and so any opinions I express about its construction and performance are with this statement in mind.

 To summarize my experience with power cords very quickly: a few have had noticeable, positive sonic effects on my rig. The effects, however, have been much more subtle than I’ve experienced with interconnects. I’m not suggesting that you’ll all find the same thing to be true, only what I’ve found in my experiences. I’ll go more in depth on the subject in my upcoming power cord review (I’m going to group several into one “article”). Hey! No smart-alecky comments -- I realize I’m late with my reviews.

 Before cutting the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power, I used it in my rig, powering my HeadRoom Max headphone amplifier. I figured if it worked some miracles, I'd keep it plugged into the Max and be done with it. I replaced my Acoustic Zen Tsunami with the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power. The Tsunami is one of the power cables that has made a mild, positive sonic contribution to my rig. Long story short, to my ears and in my rig, the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power was a step back from the Acoustic Zen Tsunami -- similar to the very-mild-if-any effects the inexpensive (~$10.00) hospital grade power cord had on my rig (relative to the comes-with-the-amp stock cord).

 So with MooGoesTheCow’s blessing (read: encouragement), the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power Cord underwent some irreversible surgery. Why were Moo and I so curious about cutting this particular cable open? Well (1) it’s not too expensive ($34.95); (2) its manufacturer says it’s designed “*to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories*;” (3) for a cable with 18-gauge conductors, it is _extremely_ heavy (heavier than some cables I’ve used with _6-AWG_ conductors); and (4) for a cable with 18-gauge conductors, it is very thick and not too flexible.

 Anyway, following is a summary of what I found, along with any opinions that I have about these findings. NOTE: I am not an electrical engineer; nor do I have, or claim to have, any expertise in electrical engineering or cable design.

 Almost the entire length of the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power is covered with what appears to be an attractive white nylon outer covering. Cutting past this revealed what looks to me like a standard utility hose. *Click here to see a photo*.

 Now this is where the procedure got interesting: after cutting away a section of the nylon outer covering, I decided that it would be an interesting time to get a cross section of the cable to see what makes the cable so heavy and rigid. Remember, the cable is very heavy. I was performing this cutting on a cutting board on a dining table, and one end of this very heavy cord was hanging off the edge of the table (this is an important detail). Before you read on, make sure to have a clear image in your head of this heavy power cord, with one end dangling off the table, about to be chopped through, with the dangling end not being held onto by me, as I was going to let it drop to the ground. Okay…. So I start cutting through the cable, just aft of the IEC plug, with *one of my sharpest knives*, and once all the way through, the heavy dangling end falls to the ground, whipping the now-cut end through the air, _and spraying (thanks to the whipping motion) a shower of *granular, metallic stuff* *all over* the place_ –- all over the table, all over the floor, all over me. *Click here for an up-close shot of some of the granular, metallic stuff*. The grain size is similar to granulated table salt, only with a great variety of grain shapes (as opposed to table salt’s rather uniform cube-shaped grains). I figured out that this granular, metallic stuff is ferromagnetic, which made magnet-assisted cleanup of the stuff possible -- still, cleanup took quite some time.

 So, simply put, the hose-like part of the cable gives the cable its basic structure and girth; and pretty much the entire length of this six-foot hose of cable is stuffed with the granular, metallic stuff. This granular, metallic stuff is what makes the cable so rigid and heavy.

 Emptying more of the granular, metallic stuff out into a trash can, I exposed the three twisted 18-gauge conductors. Each of the three conductors appears to me to be standard, stranded 18-gauge conductor. Insulation appears to me to be standard PVC. The three conductors are twisted, and this twisted bundle is wrapped in what looks to me like a spiraled paper outer covering. So this twisted conductor trio is the core of the cable. The granular, metallic stuff surrounds this core; the hose-like body surrounds that; and the nylon outer sheathing covers the hose-like body.

 Examining the cross section at the cut-off end of the cable (the IEC end) shows what looks to me like a glue of some sort used to plug each end of the hose-like body, keeping the granular, metallic stuff out of the IEC and NEMA plugs on either side of the cable, and from falling out of the cable. *Click here for a picture of this cross section* (notice the bits of granular, metallic stuff left over, the position of the twisted conductor trio in this cross section, and what appears to be glue plugging this end of the cable).

 Following are a few photos of the cut-off IEC end of the cable in various stages of being peeled away:
*This is the cut-off IEC end of the cable with the nylon sheathing cut away*, revealing the hose-like covering, and a piece of electrical tape covering a small whole (I’m guessing this whole was used to inject the glue-like stopper material at each end of the cable).

*This is pretty much the same as the above photo, but with the electrical tape peeled away*, exposing the aforementioned hole.

*This is a photo of the IEC end with everything peeled away but the twisted trio of conductors*.
One of the things I noticed was that the three-conductor core did not appear to stay suspended exactly in the middle of the granular, metallic stuff along the whole length of the cable. At some points in the cable, this twisted core pushed through the granular, metallic stuff and touched the hose-like cover. Also, at each end of the cable (as you can see in the cross section photo), the twisted conductor core is pushed out toward the side, touching the hose-like outer cover.

 Regarding the granular, metallic stuff: I'm not sure if this granular, metallic stuff is intended purely as mechanical damping, or if it is supposed to also serve as some sort of full-length ferrite. Really, I have no idea what its purpose really is, but I do know that it’s what gives this cable its very heavy weight. I’m not sure what this granular, metallic stuff is made of, but its ferromagnetism drops at least a hint of its possible content, and/or its partial content.

 Am I impressed with the build quality of this cable? Not really. Though I’ve not cut open a $500 power cable, I have cut open some $500 and $900 interconnects, a $150 headphone cable, and a couple of $250 digital cables, and found what appeared to me to be more complex internal designs and fancier materials (like Teflon and Teflon/air dielectrics, and fancy shielding, for example), not to mention what seemed to me like more uniform construction and symmetry, as well what looked to me like better cable body fit and finish from sheath to core. If I ever get the time, I’ll try to take some photos of some of these other cables I’ve cut open (in another thread, I did post some photos of a dissected section of Cardas Neutral Reference interconnect). Even a $10 Quail hospital grade power cord exhibits what looks to me like more uniform, symmetrical construction.

 Again, I’m no electrical engineer. This post is of my experiences and my opinions only. The Virtual Dynamics Basic Power cord might be just what you’re looking for, and might do better things for you and your rig. It just didn’t work for me as I had hoped, so I cut it open and found that its construction didn’t do much to impress me either.

 Maybe one day I’ll try one of the higher end Virtual Dynamics power cords and see if I get better results with one of those.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*Maybe one day I’ll try one of the higher end Virtual Dynamics power cords and see if I get better results with one of those. * 
 

...sonically or surgically? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Fascinating pictures. I really like the sound of the Power 3's in my system, to the point that when I decided to try a top of the line set of cables, I decided to start with Virtual Dynamics. I don't have them yet, but there's a case of VD headed my way...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just switched the CD53 over to the Power 3 from an Absolute Power Cord, and the difference was immediately apparent (I really used to like the APC, dammit). With the EAR HP4 driving the R10, the instrumental separation became greater, that is, each instrument seemed a more coherent whole in its own space. Bass extension was improved a lot as well (and the R10 needs every bit of low end help it can get). I tried switching back to the APC, but the difference was so obvious that I went back to the Power 3 again, pending the arrival of my upgrade.


----------



## eric343

In my professional (*cough* *cough*) opinion, that ferromagnetic powder is probably sandblasting sand (well, it looks like sandblasting sand; I don't know if sandblasting sand is magnetic). Is it connected in any way to ground? If not, I'd say its purpose is mostly filler; though it might act partly as a ferrite core despite the powdery nature meaning that it would be a very ineffective ferrite.

 The glue stuff appears to be standard hot glue, availible in nearly any craft store; though it might be special 'audiophile' hot glue 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And the air-hose is a nice touch - reminds me of the Vanhaus DIY-power cord design that uses that same type of air hose as an outer dielectric...

 The inner tri-wire cable appears to be a standard run-of-the-mill power cord; I believe Quail sells some nice ones for $1/foot. They're a bit heavier guage, though.

 Anyone want to send Jude a Nite? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 BTW, great job with the pics. They're MUCH better than the Cardas Neutral Refernce photos!


----------



## daycart1

Wow, the pellet thingees must be for shielding. I guess (OK, wildly speculate) that this means much of the benefit is for those with RFI/EMF problems.

 I wonder whether the cryo versions cryo the wire or the pellets??
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 I wonder whether the super-premium strains of VD use gold or platinum pellets?


----------



## antness

Does anyone have an opinion about the Cardas power cable? Not sure what model it is, but it's sold at Welborne Labs for $85 and looks almost like the Cardas HD600 cable.


----------



## eric343

Buy it and open it up!

 Daycart: Actually, according to the VD website, the pellet-sand is for vibration damping. To reduce "skin-effect" (where electricity travels more on the surface of the conductor than on the inside, creating phase distortions), according to them, it's important to surround the cable with something that will absorb the microscopic vibrations. Now, while I would argue that surrounding a POWER cord with FERROMAGNETIC particles would CAUSE vibrations (the 60hz vibrating magnetic field around it, remember?), they're the ones that designed it so it must do something...


----------



## daycart1

That's interesting, Eric. Nothing beats reading, I should try it. Are they referring to microscopic mechanical vibration, or to molecular "vibration" caused by EM effects?


----------



## eric343

According to VD:
  Quote:


 Skin effects, like any distortion, are a result of external energies transferring into the audio signal. Resistance in the flow of electrons (Coulomb Friction) causes a mechanical vibration inside the conductor. This mechanical vibration is one such external energy threatening the cleanliness of your audio signal. The vibration will have a predetermined frequency that is the net result of the added impact of every mass and material combination that an electron may flow through. In addition, the impedance of this Coulomb Friction vibration increases as electricity through the conductor is increased.

 Our studies concluded that this vibration may be removed via inertia to a physical object of greater mass and mechanical conductivity. Unfortunately most dielectric materials have extremely low mass and are not conductive to vibration. However, our Dynamic Filtering provides a large mass around the conductor, causing more of the vibration to be transferred out of the conductor.

 Through this application not only do we increase the speed, linearity and bandwidth of electrical frequencies, but subsequently deal with many forms of distortion, including Skin Effects. Eliminating the mechanical vibration allows us to use larger solid core conductors in our cables, resulting in a stronger, cleaner signal. 
 

Unfortunately, it's too late right now and my brain isn't quite able to dissect it as well as I'd like. But I do find it quite interesting that they show this image of the inside of their cables:


----------



## pigmode

I've found ICs to have a more dramatic change in my system than my VD Reference, but the latter did bring a blacker background and with it, more air between instruments and increased imaging. It's a great cable that needn't be hyped.


----------



## MooGoesTheCow

jude! what did you do to my cable! you were saying something about running some tests on it, but cutting it open... well, i just hope duct tape fixes it.

 just kidding. i've been waiting forever for these pics. hilarious. you should do a reinactment of the dissection and spill the pixie dust all over the floor again, posting pics, of course.

 btw, you are not touching my zens. ever.


----------



## Budgie

I think we should all chip in and buy Jude a surgical mask and gloves.


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MooGoesTheCow _
*...and spill the pixie dust all over the floor again...* 
 

Pixie Dust. Har!


----------



## andrzejpw

This is their cheapest version, right? Not the Power 3? To me, it seems like this power cord is simply a regular cord made to look expensive.


----------



## markl

While I'm not an expert in VDs cables, and I don't want to speak for them, I have spent a bit of time with Rick describing the design of his cables. I had called complaining of the weight and the stiffness, only to be informed that this was central to their design and plays a large role in the superiority of their sound vs. other after-market cords. Indeed, it is the "pixie dust" and the heavy-ness of the cord itself that is the "secret sauce" of these cables. It does all have to do with removing vibrations, but I'm in no position to describe it accurately.

 I've e-mailed Rick at VD to let him know about this thread. I've invited him to register and to make any comments here that he'd like. I'm sure he's better able to discuss their technology than I can.

 And as far as build quality goes, it *is* a $35 cable, marketing hyperbole or no. I wouldn't expect the build quality to compare to the $500 ICs you've cut open or to the build quality of your $350 Acoustic Zen Tsunami, and it's a bit unfair to make such a comparison. I think their claims relate more to sound quality than build quality. Their manufacturing costs are no less than any other manufacturer (well maybe 20% less-- they are in Canada!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) , so you shouldn't expect solid gold conductors with diamond tipped IEC prongs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Mark


----------



## eric343

Hmm... mind if I borrow your Nite for a week?


----------



## andrzejpw

Markl: I think the arguments stems from the fact that from our first impression, it seems like this power cord is little different than one from your neighborhood homedepot.


----------



## markl

Yeah, but shouldn't it be? Isn't that the whole pont? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Mark


----------



## eric343

I think you misunderstood... he said that this one is "little" different... not "a little" different...

 In otherwords, it's pretty much the same.


----------



## markl

No, it seems quite different from the average cable from Home Depot. Wildly different, almost alien. If nothing else, the copper in the Basic is at a much higher purity than the cable you buy at Home Depot. Plus it has the "Dynamic Filtering" provided by the "magic pixie dust" and connectors that are better quality than that provided on the $5 Home Depot cable, making them weigh so much more, apparently adding to their sound quality. So are they different? Yes, they're quite different. Even at a mere $35.

 Again, for $35 what was Jude expecting? I think he now owes it to intellectual honesty to compare a $350 VD cable such as the Audition to his current $350 power cable. At the very least, Jude should look at and listen to a Power 1 ($199.00 list, but available at much less) before dismissing the whole VD line, although he did say the Basic cable was better than stock.

 What do you say, Jude? I'm sure Rick would be more than happy to lend you any cable of theirs youd like, but again I don't speak for VD in any way shape or form.

 Mark


----------



## DanG

I don't see why Jude owes anything in the name of intellectual honesty after such a thorough post, including detailed descriptions and detailed and telling photographs. The Home Depot cable might not have as high-purity copper (which I strongly doubt) and may not even have connectors that are as good (of which I am also skeptical). But you can get a 12-gauge power cord for $10, whereas the Basic is an 18-gauge power cord. As we could see, much money was likely spent on the pretty coverings which might account for much of the cost. Furthermore, I don't think that the production line is as efficient at Virtual Dynamics as at whatever company manufactures power cords for Home Depot. We also saw that much of this damping doesn't make a difference, as the actual wires inside touch the metallic sheath covering.

 Comparing the $35 cable to a $350 cable seems to make sense considering that this $35 cable is touted as being able to compete handily with $500 cables. In terms of construction, it does not. And according to Jude's ears, it does not rival this $350 cable sonically, either. Maybe it competes with the glue-filled Electraglide cables?


----------



## markl

DanG,
 IMO, you're missing the point. 

 Let's lay aside VD's obvious marketing hyperbole for a second (and we can debate all day about their own "intellectual honesty" in their product claims, I can't and won't dispute that)...

 Jude has invested $350 of his own hard-earned dollars in a particular cable. Like it or not, this implies some emotional attachment to this choice-- he obviously could have afforded many other cables but deliberately made a certain choice. How can a mere $35 cable he received *for free* possibly hope to compare or compete?

 It's totally ridiculous to compare a $35 cable, regardless of how much value that $35 cable represents to a cable that has 10X the amount to play with in build quality. Surely the cable with 10X the build quality will sound better, even if the $35 cable has 5X better technology.

 I'm asking Jude to compare a $199 (list) or even a $350 (list) VD cable to his $350 Tsunami. That's a fair comparison. Don't you agree?

 Mark


----------



## eric343

I would agree; $35 vs. $350 simply isn't fair no matter what the marketdroids say. However - I'd also ask the VD folks to offer Jude some short-length cross-section cables for dissection; like George Cardas did with his Neutral Reference - I know I was quite impressed with the internal quality of THAT cable after Jude posted his dissection of that one...


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....I've e-mailed Rick at VD to let him know about this thread. I've invited him to register and to make any comments here that he'd like. I'm sure he's better able to discuss their technology than I can....* 
 

[/size]I welcome manufacturers to offer comments and technical answers, as long as they don't resort to any selling.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....And as far as build quality goes, it *is* a $35 cable, marketing hyperbole or no. I wouldn't expect the build quality to compare to the $500 ICs you've cut open or to the build quality of your $350 Acoustic Zen Tsunami, and it's a bit unfair to make such a comparison. I think their claims relate more to sound quality than build quality. Their manufacturing costs are no less than any other manufacturer (well maybe 20% less-- they are in Canada!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) , so you shouldn't expect solid gold conductors with diamond tipped IEC prongs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

[/size]I'm not the one who wrote their marketing material, man. Again, it says:[size=small]*"....It is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories...."*[/size]If I was selling a $100 headphone that I said, in the marketing material for it, was designed to compete with headphones valued up to $1430 (which includes the Sennheiser HD-600, AKG K1000, etc., and is just shy of the retail value of the Audio Technica ATH-W2002), would it be unfair if someone reviewing this $100 headphone was to compare it to these more expensive headphones given my claims?

 Besides, I'm not saying that it won't perform like a $500 cable for everyone. I'm just saying that in my rig, to my ears, and against other cables I've used within the price range the manufacturer claims it's design to compete in, my opinion is that it didn't, sonically or in terms of construction.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*No, it seems quite different from the average cable from Home Depot. Wildly different, almost alien. If nothing else, the copper in the Basic is at a much higher purity than the cable you buy at Home Depot. Plus it has the "Dynamic Filtering" provided by the "magic pixie dust" and connectors that are better quality than that provided on the $5 Home Depot cable, making them weigh so much more, apparently adding to their sound quality. So are they different? Yes, they're quite different. Even at a mere $35....* 
 

[/size]Well, the IEC end of the cable seemed no better to me than any other stock IEC connectors I've seen. The NEMA end seemed better than most stock cables to me. Regarding the purity of the copper in the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power, I haven't found any specific info as to its content or purity. From the Virtual Dynamics web site: Quote:


 [size=small]*"....It uses standard 18-gauge conductor...."*[/size] 
 

Again, I've found no other specific mention of the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power's conductor purity (if anyone knows any different, please let me know).[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....Again, for $35 what was Jude expecting? I think he now owes it to intellectual honesty to compare a $350 VD cable such as the Audition to his current $350 power cable. At the very least, Jude should look at and listen to a Power 1 ($199.00 list, but available at much less) before dismissing the whole VD line, although he did say the Basic cable was better than stock.

 What do you say, Jude? I'm sure Rick would be more than happy to lend you any cable of theirs youd like, but again I don't speak for VD in any way shape or form.

 Mark * 
 

[/size]My expectations were shaped by the claims made by the manufacturer, and, given the claims, I don't think it so unreasonable at all. And I don't recall "dismissing the whole VD line". I even said I'd be willing to try their higher end cables some other time.

 Based on my experience, I'd personally be inclined to use a ~$10 Quail "green dot" hospital grade power cable with larger 14-AWG conductors if given a choice between it and the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power. The Quail, in my rig, to my ears, performed at least as well as the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power -- and, again, I didn't feel either was much better than the stock cable that came with my Max. I felt my ~$100 BPT C-7 power cord offered more noticeable, positive effects in my rig than either the Quail or the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power.

 Again, I haven't dismissed the entire Virtual Dynamics line, and I would be interested in trying their higher end products some time in the future. I will admit, however, that, for me (in terms of a start with this line) this exercise was anything but confidence-inspiring. What _does_ inspire some confidence is the fact that some Head-Fi'ers seem to like their stuff.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*DanG,
 IMO, you're missing the point. 

 Let's lay aside VD's obvious marketing hyperbole for a second (and we can debate all day about their own "intellectual honesty" in their product claims, I can't and won't dispute that)...

 Jude has invested $350 of his own hard-earned dollars in a particular cable. Like it or not, this implies some emotional attachment to this choice-- he obviously could have afforded many other cables but deliberately made a certain choice. How can a mere $35 cable he received *for free* possibly hope to compare or compete?

 It's totally ridiculous to compare a $35 cable, regardless of how much value that $35 cable represents to a cable that has 10X the amount to play with in build quality. Surely the cable with 10X the build quality will sound better, even if the $35 cable has 5X better technology.

 I'm asking Jude to compare a $199 (list) or even a $350 (list) VD cable to his $350 Tsunami. That's a fair comparison. Don't you agree?

 Mark * 
 

[/size]Actually, as is true with most deal-seeking audiophiles, I didn't pay full retail for my Tsunami (and I didn't get it for free either). And even if I did pay full retail, I'm really not sure how this implies any emotional attachment. Remember, by now, I've used _a lot_ of cables, with fairly open access nowadays to try more, and so I'm going to go by what sounds best to my ears and in my rigs. I also just spent ~$270 (including shipping) to get some mint AKG K-340's shipped to me from the U.K. (yeah, I know some of you think I'm insane for this). I ain't gonna convince myself they were worth it if I listen to them and feel they're not (of course, I hope I find they _are_).

 Again, at some point in the future, I would like to try the higher end Virtual Dynamics stuff. And, maybe even as eric343 stated, I can get my hands on some cross sections from their cables to exercise one of my A2 tool steel, cryo-treated, sharper-than-any-knife-should-be knives.
 [size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....I think he now owes it to intellectual honesty to compare a $350 VD cable such as the Audition to his current $350 power cable....* 
 

[/size]I don't think I owe anything to anyone based on my Virtual Dynamics Basic Power experience and dissection. What I _*do*_ owe are the reviews I'm behind schedule on that I've already committed to, and I _am_ working on getting those out (I don't think they'll come one at a time -- more like in groups of two). And I won't commit to using any further audio products for review (by Virtual Dynamics or any other company) until those are complete.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I'm not the one who wrote their marketing material, man. Again, it says:"....It is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories...."If I was selling a $100 headphone that I said, in the marketing material for it, was designed to compete with headphones valued up to $1430 (which includes the Sennheiser HD-600, AKG K1000, etc., and is just shy of the retail value of the Audio Technica ATH-W2002), would it be unfair if someone reviewing this $100 headphone was to compare it to these more expensive headphones given my claims? 
 

But as you mentioned, to your ears in your particular system it apparently didn't live up to their marketing hyperbole. Fine. But that is far from the end of the story. Yes, you tried VD's bottom-of-the-line cable and found it wasn't as good as your $350 cable-- big deal.

  Quote:


 Again, I've found no other specific mention of the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power's conductor purity (if anyone knows any different, please let me know). 
 

Here's a quote from the VD site about the Power 3, the next step up from the Basic which a number of people here on this site actually own:

  Quote:


 Featuring: Dynamic Filtering, Enhanced Cryogenic Treatment, Tolerances of less than .000001 of a mil in pure solid core copper conductors (a mil is .0001 of a inch), 
 

Yeah, it *may not* apply to the Basic, but no one here owns a Basic.

  Quote:


 My expectations were shaped by the claims made by the manufacturer, 
 

Come on, Jude! You have an axe to grind here because you feel that people on this site have "taken advantage" of Head-Fi to promote Virtual Dynamics, when the reality is that you have a bunch of Members who have been genuinely blown away by these cables. I understand your being suspicious and actually respect you for your caution. But I think you should get over it and let your ears be the judge with some REAL VD cords! We aren't all full of crap!

  Quote:


 Again, I haven't dismissed the entire Virtual Dynamics line, and I would be interested in trying their higher end products some time in the future. 
 

Then I expect you to live up to this and you should automatically agree to try any cable of theirs after this little "experiment" of yours on a cable no one here owns. 

 That said, I don't see how we can expect a truly objective review of any VD cable from you after this, though...But I guess we'll have to deal with your comments either way, and that's fair enough given the nature of the Web. Are you big enough to admit that a VD cable could be any good? Could anyone after the d*ck-ish way I recognize I've treated you and basically baited you here? We'll see.

 Mark


----------



## x1lexure

This post brings up chilling memories of my vasectomy...ahahahaha j/k


----------



## MooGoesTheCow

Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*Jude has invested $350 of his own hard-earned dollars in a particular cable. Like it or not, this implies some emotional attachment to this choice-- he obviously could have afforded many other cables but deliberately made a certain choice. How can a mere $35 cable he received *for free* possibly hope to compare or compete?* 
 

The thing is, Jude auditioned several power cords from several different manufacturers before settling on his Tsunami. Was it the best power cord he heard? No. But it was the best for what he was willing to spend. If he preferred the VD cord I sent him, don't you think he would have said so? I mean, he could have sold his Tsunami and kept the VD with a lot of money left over. If I found a $50 interconnect like the Outlaw PCA to better my Silver Reference, I would have been overwhelmed with joy at being able to sell my Silver Refs for some extra spending money.

 I gave Jude the Basic Power because I felt it inferior to ALL the other cords I had on hand, save stock. With all the hoopla surrounding these do-anything VD cables, I thought I'd get another opinion from someone whose judgement I respected (though not always agreed with). Let me ask you, how many other high end power cords from other manufacturers have you auditioned at your home for a decent length of time?

 I expect cable manufacturers to make wild claims -- most do. But when a $35 cable is said, in print, to compete with the most popular $500 cables, I question the integrity of the company. In my opinion, this cord doesn't even compete with other $35 cables. Could VD's higher end stuff be leaps and bounds better? Of course. But based on this cable, I feel a lot is left to be desired.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 Let me ask you, how many other high end power cords from other manufacturers have you auditioned at your home for a decent length of time? 
 

As I've gladly stated in the long VD thread-- not a single one. All I know is that the better VD cords (Power 3 and above) have provided for me in my system a greater degree of improvement over any other tweak I've tried, including ICs, power conditioners, vibrapods, and NOS tubes.

  Quote:


 But when a $35 cable is said, in print, to compete with the most popular $500 cables, I question the integrity of the company. In my opinion, this cord doesn't even compete with other $35 cables. 
 

You are a sample size of one. Jude makes two. You cannot generalize based on a sample size of two with the specific, particular systems each of you has. There are more opinions pro-VD here to outweigh these two who based their opinions on the bottom-of-the-line cable, which again no one here owns.

 That said, I am not going to defend VD''s "aggressive" marketing as I've already stated at least twice, now 3 times.

 Mark


----------



## MooGoesTheCow

BTW, I remember seeing the Power 3 on audiogon way back when, for $50. That's $15 more than the Basic Power. I guess it's just me who is doubtful that a $15 difference could turn a poor performing cable into a good value. But, of course, this is speculation.

 But, after all, this cable does have the VD name attached to it, so one would think if they found it to be vastly inferior to their higher priced brethren (power3 and 1), they would not sell them.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*But as you mentioned, to your ears in your particular system it apparently didn't live up to their marketing hyperbole. Fine. But that is far from the end of the story. Yes, you tried VD's bottom-of-the-line cable and found it wasn't as good as your $350 cable-- big deal….* 
 

[/size]Did I ever say it was a big deal? It obviously is with _you_.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*….Come on, Jude! You have an axe to grind here because you feel that people on this site have "taken advantage" of Head-Fi to promote Virtual Dynamics, when the reality is that you have a bunch of Members who have been genuinely blown away by these cables. I understand you're being suspicious and actually respect you for your caution. But I think you should get over it and let your ears be the judge with some REAL VD cords! We aren't all full of crap!...* 
 

[/size]I swear, man, sometimes you remind me of Mel Gibson’s character in _Conspiracy Theory_, only sans any conspiracy. When and where have I indicated that I have an axe to grind with Virtual Dynamics? Via e-mail, they’ve actually expressed an interest in possibly advertising on Head-Fi –- I have no axe to grind with them. I tried one of their products, didn’t find it to my liking, and then cut it open and posted about it. I also never said any Head-Fi members are full of **** for liking their products. If anyone has to “get over it” I think it’s you.

 Oh, and by the way, are you quoting _me_ when you used the words “taken advantage of” in quotes? And can you point me to where you saw this quote or where I even established the spirit of such a statement? I’m asking honestly here, because I don’t recall making such a post.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*….Then I expect you to live up to this and you should automatically agree to try any cable of theirs after this little "experiment" of yours on a cable no one here owns….* 
 

[/size]Again, I don’t think I owe anyone anything as a result of the brief review / dissection post. Again, what I _*do*_ have to “live up to” is to complete the reviews I’ve already committed to and that I’m always behind schedule on.

 And, by the way, someone here _does_ own one. Me. Only it's now in pieces.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*….That said, I don't see how we can expect a truly objective review of any VD cable from you after this, though...But I guess we'll have to deal with your comments either way, and that's fair enough given the nature of the Web. Are you big enough to admit that a VD cable could be any good? Could anyone after the d*ck-ish way I recognize I've I've baited you here? We'll see….* 
 

[/size]There you go again, Oliver (as in Oliver Stone). According to *you*, I’ve got an axe to grind. So according to _*you*_, a truly objective review of any Virtual Dynamics cable from me is impossible. Am I “big enough to admit that a VD cable could be any good?” Cripes, markl, what’s the matter with you? And you’re pointing fingers at _me_ with words like “emotional attachment”? Re-read your posts and tell me what _you_ see as the most obvious emotional attachment in this thread.


----------



## wasifazim

Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*There are more opinions pro-VD here to outweigh these two who based their opinions on the bottom-of-the-line cable, which again no one here owns.
 Mark * 
 

Do I qualify as someone here? (actually, don't answer that..heh) I'm asking because I own a Virtual Dynamics Basic Power, which is currently lying unused because I prefer the entry-level Cardas Twinlink to it.

 - Wasif.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by wasifazim _
*Do I qualify as someone here? (actually, don't answer that..heh) I'm asking because I own a Virtual Dynamics Basic Power, which is currently lying unused because I prefer the entry-level Cardas Twinlink to it.

 - Wasif. * 
 

[/size]

 Wasif,

 Funny you should mention that cable. I also preferred the TwinLink power cord and bought it. I've since given it to another Head-Fi'er.


----------



## kelly

Jude
 Although I am admitedly amused by the similarity of some of your run-ins to some of mine, I did want to take time to thank you for posting another excellent writeup. I know how seriously you take your reviews and I respect the amount of time you've dedicated to this already. I don't agree that reviewing or posting impressions about a single product somehow indebts you to examining any other products by that manufacturer. In fact, I often wish for the opposite--that every product was examined brand-blind and had to be measured only on its own merits and not that of some BS corporate legacy.

 I still only have my old Ven Haus cables that Eric alluded to. They really are markedly better than the computer IEC and stock power cables I compared them to but all of the JPS Labs cables were clearly better. I hope you get time to post your impressions of the JPS Labs just so I get some idea of where they rank compared to the more expensive stuff. I don't know if those were in your lineup to actually review or not.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*....I hope you get time to post your impressions of the JPS Labs just so I get some idea of where they rank compared to the more expensive stuff. I don't know if those were in your lineup to actually review or not. * 
 

[/size]They are. I'm actually going to group all the power cables I've used so far into one review article. By the way, of the three JPS power cables sent, the one that clearly made the most difference in both of my main rigs was the Power AC+ (which you didn't receive for your review because it was not in my possession at the time). I still have it (it's admittedly overdue), and I will send it to you if you're interested in posting an addendum about it in your other JPS review thread. PM me if this is of interest to you.

 And thanks for the comments, man.


----------



## DarkAngel

A couple observations:
 1)Myself, Pigmode and perhaps others were not too impressed with the P3,P2 VD AC cords, compared to several other cords I have owned I didn't feel they were great performers. The three discrete cable VD designs, Audition-Nite, are much better performers and do fabulous things to improve sound. I did in fact return my P2 cords for another VD Reference AC cord.

 2)Can't tell from Jude's profile what he uses for stereo system listening, but with headphones you really can't gauge the overall performance of AC cords (or any cable really) because of the severe limitations of 3D soundstage inherent with headphone listening. The main strengths of the top VD cords is 3D soundstage enhancements and you need a good stereo system to be able to fully hear/appreciate these.

 If people do have good stereo system, they should list it in profile
 so other members know if your perspective is purely headphone based.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by DarkAngel _
*but with headphones you really can't gauge the overall performance of AC cords (or any cable really) because of the severe limitations of 3D soundstage inherent with headphone listening. The main strengths of the top VD cords is 3D soundstage enhancements and you need a good stereo system to be able to fully hear/appreciate these.* 
 

I've got to disagree with this. In a high resolution headphone system, differences between power cords are immediately obvious. Since this is a headphone forum, I'd suggest that the changes in sound in a headphone setup are the most relevant information for the readers here.

 Some headphones, the Sony R10 chief among them (with AKG K-1000 receiving honorable mention), do throw a passable imitation of a 3D soundstage, once you get past the concept of a drummer setting up in the middle of your head. You're correct, in that one of the main effects I hear with power cord changes is differences in the palpability of that "soundstage".


----------



## pigmode

You shouldn't need a high resolution system to see the sonic improvements of a $35. PC, don't you think? This IS the speaker forum, isn't it?

 I don't see why this would be such a big deal if not for the outrageous claims made by VD. It seems that the build quality of the Basic cord is pretty much in line with a hand-made product in this price range (cheap).


----------



## kelly

I thought this was a headphone forum. Maybe Virtual Dynamics should try peddling on AA if speakers are required to get value from their products. But I disagree that this holds true for power cables in general.


----------



## pigmode

Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) 

 Everythings inclusive as far as I can tell.


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) 

 Everythings inclusive as far as I can tell. * 
 

What I meant was, I think there are a number of users in this forum interested in opinions from a headphone perspective. To say that you cannot adequately judge a product without a speaker system seems like a view that would be less common here.


----------



## pigmode

No problem. I was just responding to Hirsch's comment above about relevant information. 

  Quote:


 To say that you cannot adequately judge a product without a speaker system seems like a view that would be less common here. 
 

I agree but common or not, I think that was just DA expressing his opinion. If I had to guess, I think DA brought up the speaker issue because some of the more visible participants in the VD thread used their cables in speaker systems. I do feel that system synergy is a very crucial factor, and I see DA's concerns addressing this issue directly. 

 cheers


----------



## Hirsch

I've got P3's in my speaker setup in a couple of places, and IMO they're worth it there, particularly for digital components (DVD player, pre/pro). I don't think that the speaker setup really had any more diagnostic ability than my headphone setup, with regards to the effects of power cables. The thought of wiring my 5.1 channel speaker setup (soon to be 7.1) with VD Nite PC, IC, digital IC, video, and speaker cables (some of which run over 30 feet), is absolutely terrifying.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by DarkAngel _
*....Can't tell from Jude's profile what he uses for stereo system listening, but with headphones you really can't gauge the overall performance of AC cords (or any cable really) because of the severe limitations of 3D soundstage inherent with headphone listening. The main strengths of the top VD cords is 3D soundstage enhancements and you need a good stereo system to be able to fully hear/appreciate these....* 
 

[/size]All comments in my reviews, unless otherwise noted, are based on listening with headphone rigs.

 Regarding 3D soundstage: I have always acknowledged that compromised front-to-back soundstaging is one of the shortcomings of headphone listening relative to speaker listening (lack of visceral impact / bass tactility is another shortcoming). However, I very much disagree that hearing soundstage enhancements requires loudspeakers. In reviewing upsampling DACs (using headphone rigs), the most obvious changes I heard relative to the non-upsampling players I had was a very clear and evident expansion of the soundstage, and a heightened sense of air and space around instruments and voices. I have also found this to be true when upsampling DACs are played back through speaker rigs.

 And though I won't call myself a "golden ear" or any other such title, I've been around hi-fi (headphones _and_ speakers) for most of my life now, including employment at a high-end hi-fi store through a part of my college years, where we sold loudspeakers in a _wide_ variety price ranges and form factors, and even Stax earspeakers (headphones). I feel quite confident I have a reasonable understanding of component interaction and how they relate to use in both speaker and headphone environments. I've found if the effects are minimal (or deleterious) with headphones to my ears, that that will generally carry on through speakers as well.

 So with a headphone rig, I feel I absolutely _can_ gauge the overall effects of AC cords (or any cable really), as it pertains to their use in headphone rigs (and at the very least in _my_ headphone rigs). And, as far as I'm concerned, _especially on this site_, that's a very relevant basis for reviewing these or just about any other audio components. But even then, I'd never try to pass off any of my reviews as universally applicable -- components and tastes vary from rig to rig and person to person, and I always try to acknowledge this with statements like "in my rig" and "to my ears" and the like, just to drive that point home.

 However, related to this subject, I will make this promise: I will _not_ use headphones to review crossovers, speaker cables, speaker stands and devices intended to alter room acoustics; and I will not use speakers to review headphone cables.


----------



## MooGoesTheCow

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*However, related to this subject, I will make this promise: I will not use headphones to review crossovers, speaker cables, speaker stands and devices intended to alter room acoustics; and I will not use speakers to review headphone cables. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

Jude, I think you owe it to intellectual honesty to do each of these things. I'm sure you can find a spade-to-miniplug adapter somewhere...


----------



## markl

Jude,
  Quote:


 Oh, and by the way, are you quoting me when you used the words “taken advantage of” in quotes? And can you point me to where you saw this quote or where I even established the spirit of such a statement? I’m asking honestly here, because I don’t recall making such a post. 
 

You're right, to the best of my knowledge, nothing was said publicly. I was talking out of school, and that's unfair. Again, as I said, I respect your trying to keep the board honest in terms of keeping commercial posts off the site. You were simply doing your duty as a mod and making sure things were on the up-and-up. I had no right to characterize your posting of this particular thread in the manner I did; I have no idea what your motivation was, I am not in fact psychic. I made a leap that *maybe* wasn't justified.

  Quote:


 Again, I don’t think I owe anyone anything as a result of the brief review / dissection post. 
 

In another thread where you first hinted at your "operation" on the VD Basic, you teased people that you were going to expose the hidden secrets of the cable: 

  Quote:


 Regarding the cable cutting: the Virtual Dynamics cable cutting isn't intended as an exposé, but it was very interesting. I know they only charge $34.95 for this cable, but their web site does state that it "is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories," and so my opinions about its construction and performance will be influenced by these statements. 
 

Very craftily worded, but from that, it's pretty clear (to me) what you are insinuating-- you are going to expose the "snake-oil" of the VD cords, slamming their marketing of the cables and impugning the build quality of their bottom-of-the-line product. We had to wait for your "review" a while and then it appeared, after the build-up you gave it above.

 Yes, I ascribed malevolent intent behind your post based on your comparison of a $35 cable with a $350 cable and a cross-section from a $900 cable. I still think this comparison is silly, and reveals nothing. That's my opinion, fine if you disagree.

  Quote:


 Am I impressed with the build quality of this cable? Not really. Though I’ve not cut open a $500 power cable, I have cut open some $500 and $900 interconnects, a $150 headphone cable, and a couple of $250 digital cables, and found what appeared to me to be more complex internal designs and fancier materials (like Teflon and Teflon/air dielectrics, and fancy shielding, for example), not to mention what seemed to me like more uniform construction and symmetry, as well what looked to me like better cable body fit and finish from sheath to core. If I ever get the time, I’ll try to take some photos of some of these other cables I’ve cut open (in another thread, I did post some photos of a dissected section of Cardas Neutral Reference interconnect). Even a $10 Quail hospital grade power cord exhibits what looks to me like more uniform, symmetrical construction. 
 

Based on what I saw as the absurdity of this comparison, I decided the only reasonable explanation for your entire "review" was to slam Virtual Dynamics cables by questioning the build quality and the use of the "granular metallic stuff" in the design, when as you said yourself "NOTE: I am not an electrical engineer; nor do I have, or claim to have, any expertise in electrical engineering or cable design." 

  Quote:


 There you go again, Oliver (as in Oliver Stone). According to you, I’ve got an axe to grind. So according to you, a truly objective review of any Virtual Dynamics cable from me is impossible. Am I “big enough to admit that a VD cable could be any good?” Cripes, markl, what’s the matter with you? And you’re pointing fingers at me with words like “emotional attachment”? Re-read your posts and tell me what you see as the most obvious emotional attachment in this thread. 
 

You're right again. I took this too personally. I apologize. 
 Over time, I have come to know the good folks at Virtual Dynamics and find them to be great to deal with, extremely knowledgeable about cable design/theory, and incidentally, terrific human beings to boot, who happen to make the best "tweak" I've ever heard in my system. 

 I've recommended their cables to *everyone* I know in my audio circles, and to a man, they've all been blown away. 

 Maybe I was defending my friends there at VD a little (OK a lot) heavy-handedly. This post struck me as inherently unfair and that's why I said "you owed it" to us to do a fair evaluation with one of their better cables that really more closely matches the level of equipment you own and the other cables you've auditioned. I read this as an attack on their technology and their product line, but, yes, that's *my* interpretation. Did I really think you had any intention to replace your $350 cable and use the $35 Basic on your Max? No, but again, I'm ascribing motives to you with my psychic power. I'm still not sure why you even bothered with this cable given the level of the other products you are going to review. It makes no sense to me.

 But I do ask you to consider that, as owner/operator of Head-Fi, your reviews carry a lot of weight. A lot of weight. I assume you can recognize that. They are as well-written and thoroughly documented as any on the site. Putting your name on a review (whether you agree with this or not) gives it a "Head-Fi stamp of approval", or at least gives it a sort of authority and aura that other reviews do not carry.

 Mark


----------



## kelly

Jude's reviews carry a lot of weight because people have come to respect his very thorough and well written articles. If Jude believes in what he posts (and I believe he does) then I don't think there should be any handholding, punch-pulling or apologizing for those views due to his popularity or moderator status.

 I know a good number of people who work in the press and the editor of every magazine I know is very outspoken and opinionated. Some of the staff will sometimes disagree with the editor's opinions and other times not. Sometimes the readers will disagree and other times not. Never have I once seen an editor withhold his own opinions because they "carried too much weight."

 I try to give every company the benefit of the doubt. Jude and I don't always agree but I do think we both have a very deep and genuine respect for entrepreneurs. When someone sees a negative view from Jude, myself or (I believe) other members of Head-Fi, I believe that view is in spite of this respect not because of a pre-existing disrespect for new audio companies. Not every product is a good value and out of even the ones that are generally become accepted to be, not everyone likes them.

 Integrity does not come without consequence. Sometimes people's feelings get hurt and sometimes companies don't sell as much as they otherwise would due to some outspoken opinions. I personally have a difficult time taking pity on Virtual Dynamics since Head-Fi has surely brought them more than enough praise and business to offset the occasional negative review.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....I have no idea what your motivation was, I am not in fact psychic. I made a leap that *maybe* wasn't justified....* 
 

[/size]You seem to have a penchant for sometimes seeing all sorts of motivations other than the obvious _if_ a post doesn't agree with you. I'm about to reveal the deep, dark secret of my post....ready? *I used the cable. It didn't impress me sonically. It didn't impress me in terms of its construction. I posted about it.* Some secret, eh? Like a Geraldo Rivero special.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....In another thread where you first hinted at your "operation" on the VD Basic, you teased people that you were going to expose the hidden secrets of the cable:....* 
 

[/size]You quoted me and still you say this? Let me do as you did and quote me (bold type is for emphasis): Quote:


 *jude said:
 Regarding the cable cutting: the Virtual Dynamics cable cutting [size=medium]isn't[/size] intended as an exposé, but it was very interesting. I know they only charge $34.95 for this cable, but their web site does state that it "is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories," and so my opinions about its construction and performance will be influenced by these statements.* 
 

Where is the tease? Where did I hint at hidden secrets? I swear, you missed your calling. If you hadn't, Geraldo wouldn't still have a job. And still, there's more![size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....Very craftily worded, but from that, it's pretty clear (to me) what you are insinuating-- you are going to expose the "snake-oil" of the VD cords, slamming their marketing of the cables and impugning the build quality of their bottom-of-the-line product. We had to wait for your "review" a while and then it appeared, after the build-up you gave it above....* 
 

[/size]Read my quote again. Crafty? You know what part about your statement I agree with? The part that said "to me" to qualify it as something *you* feel, and probably only you. How does my quoted comment hint at "snake oil"? (By the way, are you quoting me again?) You make it sound like there was a big build-up -- it took, what, a day? Did it ever occur to you that I had to actually take pictures and write it? The whole thing was quite impromptu. I mentioned it, people asked about it (via posts and private messaging), and, after writing about it and taking pictures, I posted it [size=medium]*less than 24 hours later.*[/size] From 10-26-2002 02:19 EST to 10-27-2002 01:07 EST -- is that 23-hour period the pre-planned "build-up" you're referring to? Okay, I'll say it: sometimes you can be _very_ weird about your assumptions. And if you see black choppers above your house, I swear to you it is completely unrelated to my cable dissection post.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by markl _
*....I'm still not sure why you even bothered with this cable given the level of the other products you are going to review. It makes no sense to me....* 
 

[/size]Because MooGoesTheCow bought it, tried it, and wasn't impressed by it. Then he asked me to try it. So from now on, I can only review gear that meets your approval? I'll say it again, the company manufacturing it is selling it as competitive with $500 power cords. *I did not make that claim.* And if I decide to sell something that I claim is designed to compete with items costing >14 times the price, should I be surprised if someone actually takes it upon himself to make the comparison? Remember also that there were ~$100 cables I also compared it to, however briefly in text, as well as a *$10* one. I'm not the one who decided to affiliate that product with that company in the context of $500 performance for $35 -- the company did. If, to my ears, it _had_ performed better than one of the $100 cords I've used, I would have said that instead. I have not heard any other products in their line -- does that mean I can't post an honest experience/opinion of the one product of theirs I _have_ used? You said it yourself, markl -- you're taking this _one_ review very personally (for whatever reason, _way_ to personally, in my opinion), and I'm not going to type another word after this post in response to any other purely emotional, paranoid response to my dissection post you offer.

 I understand you're trying to defend the company. But you have to get it through your head that I used/reviewed/dissected one product by this company and did not like it. Their other products might be miracle workers for me (I'll find out if/when I ever try more of their products in the future), but this one wasn't, and I feel no shame in pointing that out. Deal with it, fer cryin' out loud.


----------



## DanG

I agree with Kelly. I'd just like to add, Mark, that it's far more worthwhile to read what's on the page and not what's in your imagination. Jude's review and report was entirely factual where designs were concerned, and very even-handed where opinions were concerned. I don't see anything that at all resembled an unfair or far-fetched conclusion.

 Reading into a post and accusing of something without evidence seems silly to most readers but is also insulting -- not only to the poster but to everyone else who logs on and just wants to read reviews, not far-fetched accusations of political intrigue. Keep in mind that _none_ of us enjoys verbal abuse.

 As Kelly said, Jude's reviews carry weight not because he's fronting the cash for this site, but because his past reviews have been honest, accurate, and fair. They've been helpful to me and countless others on this website in making purchasing decisions because they _don't_ have any ulterior motives behind them. What you consider absurd comparisons were asked for by the manufacturer, not conjured up by Jude.


----------



## AC1

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*
 I'm not the one who decided to affiliate that product with that company in the context of $500 performance for $35 -- the company did. 
* 
 

Reading statements like that always make me wonder exactly what $500 cord (component, etc) did it actually compete with... Were there maybe more than one brand that the manufacturer compared or if they even did any comparison at all?


----------



## Orpheus

look, guys... virtual dynamics has every right to say that their $35 cable can compete with $500 cables....... why? they are not saying that their cable used more expensive materials (how could it?--it's 1/10th the price)... they are not saying they are more time consuming to build (again, 1/10th the price!)... and they are not ever saying their design is more complicated......

 what they are saying is that it sounds better. period. and "sounding" better is absolutely subjective. it "sounds" better than $500 cables... how can you argue with that?

 now... i personally believe you guys are comparing unfairly too... again, yes, many companies have more expensive designs/materials/construction... but that's not the point.

 ...here's an example: Do you buy CDs based on how many pages there are in their inserts, and how pretty their picture was printed on the CD? Do pick books to read based on how expensive the paper was that they used? ...would you eat a bear's gall bladder ($3000 US dollars in China) rather than a Big Mac?

 now, some probably think these comparisons are silly. but all i am saying is that we should not judge VD based on the cost of manufacturing... whether we like their cables or not, is a matter of taste.

 you see Jude, it IS unfair to compare this $35 cable to $500 cables in terms of cost/materials... VD made no claim on these premises... their exact words: "to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power chords."

 ....Jude, when was the last time you based a purchase of a cable on the materials used? i don't think that was ever your primary concern. you listened to the cable and picked what you liked. ....it is what "sounds" the best that determines the "value" of a cable.

 and that's all that needed to be compared.

 ......i just want to also say, i really don't believe anything VD has claimed in their ads... but to be fair to all, you cannot devalue a product based on claims that the manufacturer never made. it's not fair.

 ...i also want to say, Jude... i think you were just making observations... but you can see from replies you received that people interpreted what you said as a direct comparison of the VD Basic cable with much more expensive models. even if you didn't intend such comparisons, you still should only stick to claims relevant to the product: in this case, it "sounds" better.

 dean


----------



## carlo

dean,

 if a company makes an outrageous claim: "competes with the most popular $xxx power cords", they're encouraging what jude did (a comparison with an $xxx power cord). hell, the power cord jude used is significantly cheaper than the standard set by the company.

 yeah its a $35 cord, and jude disected it fairly then compared it with what the company said was fair competition; to his ears in his rig those claims didn't stand up. he didn't do anything but offer up information and a review... what i don't get is why there's the response that there has been. 

 this is an example of a consumer checking out a product in a way that most consumers can't. don't forget that he did the same to one of cardas' cables.

 if anything i'm patiently waiting for a response from virtual dynamics. virtual dynamics is the only person/s that can explain what jude is showing as well as give justification to their own claims in terms of design. 

 jude,

 very interested in seeing pics of the other cables you've maimed. i understand your time issues, just understand i'll be excited when they're posted 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 best,
 carlo.


----------



## Orpheus

well, there's nothing wrong with dissecting the cable and making observations. saying that certain constructions are bad, or inferior quality is fine. ...that's what a scientific review is about.

 but the problem is, Jude misconstrued the meaning of VD's quote of saying that this $35 cable being equal to a $500 cable. yes, they did say that. but no, they did not mean it costed the same to make. there's a difference. they said it performed as well. and that's all they meant.

 so, again, it is unfair to compare this cable to higher priced models and say that since it was made cheaper, it is not as good. that's simply not the point.

 you can say, it doesn't sound as good. that's fine. you can also point out that it wasn't made as well... which Jude did too. and that's fine also. but when he quoted the words VD used, he also implied that VD did not live up to its claims. which is unfair.

 do you understand what i mean?

 ...what i am saying is difference from what the other objectors are saying: they say that it is unfair to compare two differently priced cables, despite what the manufacturer claims. and i think they are wrong. if the manufacturer claims anything, you have the right to refute such claims... BUT ONLY SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY CLAIM.

 Jude's dissection is good, and detailed. his writing is good too. i have no problem with most of his comments... just that he cannot imply that VD's cable did not live up to its claims. his observations have nothing to do with anything VD said in their quote.


----------



## Orpheus

i should note that i actually talked to the owner of VD, long distance to Canada for almost an hour, one night a couple weeks ago.

 he makes no secret of what's inside these cables. he told me straight up it's "filler." but this very special filler is integral to his overall design. this is his "dynamic filtering."

 again, i don't care for what he has to say... but for $35, you are buying into a very unique idea, and construction. so, taking this into mind, i think this cable could quite possibly be even more time consuming to make than the Cardas cable Jude dissected, considering VD is a much much much smaller company than Cardas.

 more complex doesn't necessarily mean better (though Jude seems to imply such.) but this VD is definately the most unique cable i have ever seen. rock filled power cables.... hmm... try explaining this to your local power company.... "hi sir, i got some great rock, er em... crystal... to stuff in your power lines!"... heh he... okay... sorry... no more making fun. ...but they are a great company... they seriously care about their products. call them up... you'll see what i mean. heck, he talked to me for 1 hour!


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*look, guys... virtual dynamics has every right to say that their $35 cable can compete with $500 cables......* 
 

[/size]Yes, they do. I don't believe I've said otherwise.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....they are not saying that their cable used more expensive materials (how could it?--it's 1/10th the price)... they are not saying they are more time consuming to build (again, 1/10th the price!)... and they are not ever saying their design is more complicated......* 
 

[/size]I never said they claimed these things, only that by stating a specific price point it's supposed to be competitive with, it's only natural that someone's going to see if they can extract that level of performance from that cable in their rig. Maybe some will, maybe some won't. In my opinion, I didn't.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....what they are saying is that it sounds better. period. and "sounding" better is absolutely subjective. it "sounds" better than $500 cables... how can you argue with that?....* 
 

[/size]In terms of audio equipment, one can only review based on his ears/preferences/rig. That's what I did. It's up to each reader of any review-type comment I might make to decide on whether or not it's worthwhile. I think I've stated "in my rig", "in my opinion", "to my ears" many times, and probably in this thread, too. Should we _never_ write or read audio reviews because of the subjectivity of audio reviewing? Should reviews only include that which has been instrument-measured like bandwidth, capacitance, inductance, etc.?[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....now... i personally believe you guys are comparing unfairly too... again, yes, many companies have more expensive designs/materials/construction... but that's not the point....* 
 

[/size]What compelled me to open up the cord (which I stated) was to find out, among other things, why a cable with 18-gauge conductors was so heavy and rigid. Given the practical opportunity, I like to see what's inside of most things I get my hands on. I know what my BPT looks like on the inside. I don't know what my Brick Wall looks like on the inside (no screws and no pics on the Web of its insides that I can find). I asked Roy Hall if I could open up the Music Hall MMF-CD25 review unit to take pics, and he granted the permission to do so (it turns out I didn't need to do this as I found someone who'd already done it online). I have sections of several Cardas cables, so you can bet I've dissected those too (one of which I've already posted pics of, and a couple more upcoming).

 I'd discussed it's sonic performance as I heard it in my primary rig, relative to other like products. That I later dissected the cable and posted pics of it doesn't invalidate those sonic opinions (in my opinion) any more than posting pics of the Neutral Reference dissection should invalidate my review of those.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*.......here's an example: Do you buy CDs based on how many pages there are in their inserts, and how pretty their picture was printed on the CD? Do pick books to read based on how expensive the paper was that they used? ...would you eat a bear's gall bladder ($3000 US dollars in China) rather than a Big Mac?....* 
 

[/size]Read my point above. Your post reads as if I hadn't made any mention of my opinions of its sonic performance in my rig. I did.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....now, some probably think these comparisons are silly. but all i am saying is that we should not judge VD based on the cost of manufacturing....* 
 

[/size]Again, read my above point. Read my dissection post again. My comments regarding the physical construction of the cable as I saw it was more commentary than it was opinion. I do summarize later that I'm not impressed with the construction. I _shouldn't_ state that? I wasn't impressed by the construction. I don't get why it should be verboten to mention as much. If I was impressed by the construction, I would have said that instead. Again, I had discussed what I thought of its sonic performance in my rig also. That determination was made by listening, and before I ever cut it open. If it ended up performing sonically in a manner I liked, I almost certainly would NOT have cut it open, and instead would've just kept it plugged in.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....you see Jude, it IS unfair to compare this $35 cable to $500 cables in terms of cost/materials... VD made no claim on these premises... their exact words: "to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power chords."

 ....Jude, when was the last time you based a purchase of a cable on the materials used? i don't think that was ever your primary concern. you listened to the cable and picked what you liked. ....it is what "sounds" the best that determines the "value" of a cable.....* 
 

[/size]Okay, for the umpteenth time, did I _not_ comment on my opinions of its sonic performance in my rig? Given what I see as some ambiguity in the value statement made by the manufacturer, I chose to evaluate it and give my opinion with that value statement in mind, both in terms of its sonic performance as I heard it, relative to other like products; as well as to evaluate its construction when I determined that, to my ears, I wasn't deriving $500 worth of sonic performance from the cable in my rig, and in my opinion.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....and that's all that needed to be compared....* 
 

[/size]Says who? I liked the Cardas Neutral References a lot, and I still cut a section of Neutral Reference interconnect cable open after I'd posted the review, not knowing exactly what I'd find. If I wasn't impressed with its construction, I wouldn't have changed my review's sonic evaluation of the product. As it turns out, I _was_ as impressed by its construction as I was its sonic performance in my rig, to my ears. I posted pics of this, too -- did you have a problem with that?[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*......i just want to also say, i really don't believe anything VD has claimed in their ads... but to be fair to all, you cannot devalue a product based on claims that the manufacturer never made. it's not fair....* 
 

[/size]Then we disagree on this point. You claim the manufacturer never made this claim of value, and I think the statement from the manufacturer that *It is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories....* was very reasonably construed by me.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*...i also want to say, Jude... i think you were just making observations... but you can see from replies you received that people interpreted what you said as a direct comparison of the VD Basic cable with much more expensive models. even if you didn't intend such comparisons, you still should only stick to claims relevant to the product: in this case, it "sounds" better....* 
 

[/size]That's because I _was_ making direct comparisons to more expensive models. Again, I feel my interpretation of the manufacturer's value comparison is very reasonable, and I wonder how _you_ think others might be interpreting it.

 As I've also stated in this thread, the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power might be the cat's meow for some. It just wasn't for me.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....but the problem is, Jude misconstrued the meaning of VD's quote of saying that this $35 cable being equal to a $500 cable. yes, they did say that. but no, they did not mean it costed the same to make. there's a difference. they said it performed as well. and that's all they meant....* 
 

[/size]Read my previous post in response to you and this point.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....so, again, it is unfair to compare this cable to higher priced models and say that since it was made cheaper, it is not as good. that's simply not the point....* 
 

[/size]Read my previous post in response to you and this point.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*you can say, it doesn't sound as good. that's fine. you can also point out that it wasn't made as well... which Jude did too. and that's fine also. but when he quoted the words VD used, he also implied that VD did not live up to its claims. which is unfair.* 
 

[/size]That's left to each user to decide, isn't it? This user is of the opinion that this cable didn't live up to the claims made by the manufacturer as this user interpreted those claims, in this user's rig, to this user's ears (and, yeah, also subsequently to this user's eyes).[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*...do you understand what i mean?....* 
 

[/size]Yeah, but it doesn't seem you understand what I mean.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*...what i am saying is difference from what the other objectors are saying: they say that it is unfair to compare two differently priced cables, despite what the manufacturer claims. and i think they are wrong. if the manufacturer claims anything, you have the right to refute such claims... BUT ONLY SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY CLAIM....* 
 

[/size]So, _what_, Orpheus, did they SPECIFICALLY CLAIM? I think I've interpreted the claim very reasonably.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*Jude's dissection is good, and detailed. his writing is good too. i have no problem with most of his comments... just that he cannot imply that VD's cable did not live up to its claims. his observations have nothing to do with anything VD said in their quote.* 
 

[/size]Imply? I think I stated my opinions very clearly. My experience with it doesn't lead me to believe that this product lives up to what I see as the considerable value claims of the manufacturer. But that's just me. Some who use it will agree. Some who use it won't. So part of my opinion has _a lot_ to do with their quote that, again, I feel I've very reasonably interpreted.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....again, i don't care for what he has to say... but for $35, you are buying into a very unique idea, and construction. so, taking this into mind, i think this cable could quite possibly be even more time consuming to make than the Cardas cable Jude dissected, considering VD is a much much much smaller company than Cardas....* 
 

[/size]That is irrelevant to me. From a consumer's standpoint, $35 spent is $35 spent. $500 spent is $500 spent. Your comment would be consistent with the belief that a larger company's products will always be better than a smaller company's competing products. And I don't believe that to be true either -- but I do recognize that advantages of economies of scale, properly applied, can lead to certain upper hands.

 I have _no_ idea how long it took to make the Cardas Neutral Reference or the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power, and, truth be told, I couldn't care less. My comments made no mention of any guesses about how long it took to make them. Construction quality and time-to-construct don't necessarily have much of a relationship. It'd take me a heck of a lot longer to build a META42 than tangent or eric343, and I'm guessing that wouldn't yield me any advantages to them in terms of build quality.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*more complex doesn't necessarily mean better (though Jude seems to imply such.)....* 
 

[/size]I do? Where?[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*...but they are a great company... they seriously care about their products. call them up... you'll see what i mean. heck, he talked to me for 1 hour!* 
 

[/size]That's very nice. If they're nice people, great. But does that somehow mandate that *everyone* _must_ like this specific product of theirs? Talking to him for an hour (which I may do some day myself) won't change my opinion of how this specific product performed in my main headphone rig.


----------



## Orpheus

"That's very nice. If they're nice people, great. But does that somehow mandate that *everyone* must like this specific product of theirs?"

 --no man. i respect your opinion. that wasn't my point. i just didn't want to sound so negative towards them.

 your opinion: "This user is of the opinion that this cable didn't live up to the claims made by the manufacturer as this user interpreted those claims, in this user's rig, to this user's ears (and, yeah, also subsequently to this user's eyes)." nothing wrong.... until "to this user's eyes." physical appearance has very little to do with whether this cable competes or not: what if this cable did sound better than your Cardas Neutrals? would you then say that the VD Basic "competes with the value of $500 power chords?" um, yes, you would, depsite what you find inside. i quote, "If I wasn't impressed with its construction, I wouldn't have changed my review's sonic evaluation of the product." exactly.

 ultimately, you will keep the cable that sounds the best, right? that is why the physical appearance of a cable has nothing to do with its "value."

 but again, you are dissecting a cable, to specifically examine how it was constructed. then you mention VD's claim. this thread is about the VD construction. is it wrong of me to interpret then that you are nullifying VD's claim at least partially because of how the cable is constructed? .......no. so, you go on to say: "So part of my opinion has a lot to do with their quote that, again, I feel I've very reasonably interpreted."

 i ask you to re-interpret their quote. i do not see how that quote could be interpreted to include physical attributes when clearly a $35 cable cannot use the same materials or have the same degree of complexity as a $500 cable. it simply does not. but it Can sound as good, which is what VD claims.

 i think that's basically where we disagree... the interpretation of that quote.

 opinions are what these forums are all about. buy when you make comments that can jeopardize a company's success, you have to be careful that you are not criticizing wrongly, that if a company makes a claim, then you refute that claim on the terms with which it was made.

 "So, what, Orpheus, did they SPECIFICALLY CLAIM? I think I've interpreted the claim very reasonably."

 --the claim that their cable has a value of $500. i have explained why i think ultimately "value" to you is most importantly how the cable sounds. so, the cable construction in respect to "value" is irrelevant.

 however....... i still enjoyed reading your article. it just has nothing to do with this cable's "value."


----------



## kelly

Orpheus, it clearly happened in this order.

 1. Jude read the claim VD makes on their web site.
 2. Jude judged the performance based ONLY on his subjective opinion of sonic perfromance when directly compared to other cables. He found their claim was not true for him in his system.
 3. He opened the cable and described what he saw.

 Is your beef that you're claiming #3 shouldn't be done? That it's wrong of a user to look at the physical attributes of something purchased? I don't think he was expecting to find a $500 cable under the skin--he simply opened it up and described what he found. He found something unusual and most people (including you) found it interesting.

 There's nothing wrong with good customer relations but the way people have reacted to this thread makes me wonder if it is only by that friendliness that the company survives. Shouldn't a product be able to stand on its own?


----------



## Orpheus

no man.... maybe i haven't clearly stated my point. you said basically the same thing Jude said...

 so, once again...

 1. I want you to compare the sonic performance.
 2. I am very glad you opened this cable. Everyone was curious about what's inside.

 yes, Jude did describe the sonic performance. and he didn't like it. AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS.

 but this is a thread about the construction of the cable. he clearly is relating VD's quote to the construction of this cable. no doubt about it. he even admitted so....

 i quote: "That's because I was making direct comparisons to more expensive models. Again, I feel my interpretation of the manufacturer's value comparison is very reasonable, and I wonder how you think others might be interpreting it."

 so, the point is... i am saying he misinterpretted the quote as saying that "value" includes things like how the cable was constructed. and i am making the argument that it does not, and VD only was discussing sonic performace, which is absolutely subjective. Jude can make any comment he wants, and he absolutely has the right to say VD did not live up to expectations... but comparing the construction with higher priced models is a totally different subject... it has nothing to do with this quote.

 do you understand me?

 i think i know why you and Jude think i'm wrong... Jude keeps telling me to reread his original post. and i have. i still think you are confusing the issues. ....so, let me get this straight:

 ------you both are saying that Jude has only rated VD's Basic chord based on sonic performance, and this dissection was not used to judge VD's cable. but it clearly has... you have included a claim made by VD in a thread absolutely about a dissection. so, you clearly are relating the two in some way. period.

 but clearly, Kelly, you are what Jude accuses of me... cause i have clearly stated you have the right to do both (rate this item sonically, and physically):

 i said, "well, there's nothing wrong with dissecting the cable and making observations. saying that certain constructions are bad, or inferior quality is fine. ...that's what a scientific review is about."

 ...so, i hope you try to understand my argument... and not take it as a complaint about Jude's observations.

 my entire complaint is about Jude's representation of VD not living up to it's claims.... which has nothing to do with construction.

 that is my point. so, i can be wrong. if you want to yell at me for being wrong, tell me why.... not about whether Jude could do a dissection or not, which i said plenty of times that this dissection was really cool.

 the question is, whether VD's claim of "value" includes construction. i am arguing that they only claimed the cable "sounded" better. am i clear?


----------



## kelly

Orpheus

 We're still missing each other. What I read was Jude saying that the company didn't live up to its claim with regards to sonic performance only.

 Dismantling the cable and finding it to be interesting was seperate from this. I did not interpret Jude as saying the cable had to meet a certain physical look in order to live up to the company's sonic claim.


----------



## pigmode

(sigh) Man, I feel like I fueled the fires somewhat when I joked around about this being an expose. I had absolutely no idea that all of this might transpire, and I guess I forgot all about the lowest common denominator:

 This is your brain - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	













 This is your brain on the internet - pfffttt*BOOOM* 

 Any questions?


----------



## Orpheus

yeah... that's what i took both you and Jude to be arguing with me about.

 but you see, this whole thread was about a dissection. you're right, Jude first started as saying that this cable didn't do much good for him... so he opened it up.

 but he IS using this quote in this thread. why? because he wants to compare this cable with more expensive ones, cause VD says this cable has a "value" of $500.

 now, in a way, he's using this quote as an excuse, or justification for comparing with cables 10x its price. comparing with more expensive cables is fine!--i have no problem with that. he can compare with $5000 cables for all i care. but this has nothing to do with VD's claims. so, he has no right to use VD's quote in conjuntion with this dissection. do you know what i mean?

 this dissection is entirely permissible as long as he makes no reference to VD's quote.

 no matter what Jude's intentions were, including this quote in a thread about dissection clearly is relating these two subjects in some way. there's no way around it. can you see how that is?

 the only reason i made any argument was that i read the 40 or so replies this thread had, and i was just thinking i had something to say... even if i am wrong in making this argument... i'm probably not the only one. others are also thinking you unjustly evaluating VD's claims. and this is dangerous, because you are devaluing a company's product... so such subject matters need to be very carefully approached. especially devaluing a company's credulity (? did i spell that right)... anyway... i think that borders on U.S. law... it's a pretty serious thing.

 so, i guess the question is, what's wrong with my logic that you find objectionable? (if i may just say... i am reading everything with an open mind. i respect all your statements.)


----------



## kelly

Orpheus
 So... you'd be happy if the post was titled differently?


----------



## Orpheus

heh he... something like that. .....i'd be happy if he took out that quote. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but... do you understand at least what my argument is? am i way off?


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*heh he... something like that. .....i'd be happy if he took out that quote. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but... do you understand at least what my argument is? am i way off? * 
 

I do understand and I do still think you're a little off base. The purpose of the thread was clearly to do two things: post the sonic impressions of the cable AND to dissect it and take a look inside. The quote was related to the first point, not the second and I do think it's approriately used here. I could concede that the title doesn't reflect both purposes of the post, but I also think that's sort-of making a big deal out of nothing. Titles never completely explain the contents of a post.


----------



## Orpheus

yeah, that's what i thought you guys were saying. i understand. perhaps i am "off-base." .....but i don't think so. i'll post a more concrete argument when i think of one.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....this dissection is entirely permissible as long as he makes no reference to VD's quote....* 
 

[/size]Oh, really? Thanks so much for laying the reviewing ground rules down for me.

 Okay, Orpheus, let me make this very clear for you. In fact, here's a mini review _just for you_.

 The cable cost $35.00. The company makes the following statement:[size=large]*

  Quote:


 Power Series Basic Power

 This is an elegant yet hefty power cable. It uses standard 18-gauge conductor with a moulded IEC and a Hubbell receptacle. It is designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories. 

 Basic power is the first step into the virtual world and uses the technology of Dynamic Filtering. 
 

*[/size][size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....what they are saying is that it sounds better. period. and "sounding" better is absolutely subjective. it "sounds" better than $500 cables... how can you argue with that?....* 
 

[/size][size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....i am arguing that they only claimed the cable "sounded" better. am i clear?....* 
 

[/size]Now, _where_ in there does it say "sound"? You had it in quotes. Where does it say that, though? Given that it doesn't specify this, one can evaluate its claimed value based on a reasonable interpretation of the manufacturer's statement.

 Okay, now for the mini-review-just-for-you:

 In reviewing, it is my goal to give an opinion of an audio product _first_ (in terms of importance) on its sonic attributes as I hear them.

 I had the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power in my rig for a while, plugged into my Max. Even after time allowed for break-in (it was already also used by MooGoesTheCow), I am of the opinion that it offered no sonic advantage, that I could hear, over a $10 Quail hospital grade cord. This, in and of itself, was disappointing for me. In light of the claims made by the manufacturer -- even if applied only to its sonic performance -- I found it even more disappointing.

 Again, this is my opinion, based on my experience, in my rig, to my ears.

 Given that *I* wasn't hearing $35 worth of performance in my rig, to my ears, in my opinion, I decided to see what was in it -- it's a power cable that is _very_ heavy and stiff, and yet has 18-gauge conductors. I did that. In doing that, I admitted that I was not impressed with its construction, even for a $35 cable. I have a $10 hospital grade cable, even if machine-made, that I feel displays more uniform, more symmetrical and cleaner construction. Again, given the claims of the manufacturer, and the fact that it didn't perform -- in my opinion, to my ears, in my rig -- sonically nearly as well as I had expected, I also found that its construction also left me unimpressed.

 Also, from a physical standpoint, in a brief search of sub-$500 audiophile power cables, and even sub-$100 ones I found specs for, all had conductors larger than 18-gauge. The Cardas Twinlink, with 16-AWG conductors, was the next smallest I found when looking this morning. But, Cardas' site states, regarding the Twinlink Power Cord: Quote:


 Twinlink is a small (16 awg) power cord that is light weight and flexible. It is designed for front end components such as pre-amplifiers, CD players, turn tables, etc. 
 

Based on wire gauge, the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power has ultimately less current-carrying capability than the TwinLink, and even less than my $10 Quail hospital grade cord. Some will find this relevant, some will not. So some will consider this in weighing its value relative to the manufacturer's claims, and some will not. In the audiophile world, it seems to me that there's at least some emphasis placed on a power cable's current-carrying ability. It is my opinion that some consumers might not realize what gauge/AWG ratings mean in terms of current-carrying ability, and might be looking more at the cable's total girth than the conductor size when conductor size _can_ be a factor in some applications.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....others are also thinking you unjustly evaluating VD's claims. and this is dangerous, because you are devaluing a company's product... so such subject matters need to be very carefully approached. especially devaluing a company's credulity (? did i spell that right)... anyway... i think that borders on U.S. law... it's a pretty serious thing.* 
 

[/size]And he's a legal eagle, too! Okay, Johnnie Cochrane, here's the deal. I can freely state my opinions, and they're all clearly branded as my opinions. Now this might rub you the wrong way, but not all reviews of audio products will be positive. Regarding their value statement specifically (as quoted in big letters at the top of this post), read it again, and realize that there's some ambiguity in the statement of value, and so it's left to reasonable interpretation. F. Lee Bailey, my friend, you should have learned in law school that ambiguity is generally interpreted against the drafter -- that is, for example, if the drafter has a problem with the other party's interpretation, the question generally becomes whether or not, through any ambiguity of the statement, the other party made a reasonable interpretation of the statement. And given the statement, I'll say again that I've made a very reasonable interpretation of it.

 Give it a rest.[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*....i'll post a more concrete argument when i think of one.* 
 

[/size]Uh, yeah, you do that.


----------



## acidtripwow

Virtual Dynamic Power 3 power cords are actually pretty good for the money. They're better than the Quail power cord. If you think Virtual Dynamics is a full of **** company then you should try their Nite series cables. I've had the Nite digital and it was an amazing cable that just let too much information come through. It was just a lot more transparent than I wanted. I needed a warm cable but if you're not into the warm sound then the Virtual Dynamic Nite series might be for you.


----------



## jude

[size=xx-small] Quote:


 _Originally posted by acidtripwow _
*....If you think Virtual Dynamics is a full of **** company....* 
 

[/size]I'd like it on the record -- particularly for Judge Orpheus -- that I did not say this, or even hint at this, in any of my posts. acidtripwow appears to me to be simply laying down a qualifier in an attempt to address anyone -- if such individuals even exist -- who might think so.


----------



## Orpheus

i think you got me wrong Jude. "Now this might rub you the wrong way, but not all reviews of audio products will be positive." of course there will be negative opinions. isn't that what a review is? ...there's no need to get all emotional, dude. i'm just stating an argument.

 i tell you what i think. you tell me what you think. that's what a debate is all about. i never said anything inflamatory about you. i don't think so anyway. if i have, i apologize. but i think this is getting out of hand. i only meant to let you know that you Might have said something you shouldn't. that's all.

 so, um, i guess this Johnny Cochrane, aka Mr. Bailey, will just shut up k?... no one's paying me for this one. heck, i don't even agree with VD's design myself.


----------



## eric343

Man, this has gotten WAY WAY WAY out of hand.


----------



## AC1

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*
 In reviewing, it is my goal to give an opinion of an audio product first (in terms of importance) on its sonic attributes as I hear them.
* 
 

That's the way it should be, I can't believe that on an audio site there is criticism on giving information on the sonics of a product. It's just ridiculous to me that challenging their claim is so wrong in this thread. I want to know the sonics, I read this thread hoping there was some kind of mention on sonics... It's this nit picky scrutiny that makes it discouraging to want to realate any impressions about products.


----------



## daycart1

Look, when a company advertises that their $x product is meant to compete with $xx products, they are certainly inviting competition and comparison.

 This is compatible with the comparison's being partial (e.g. for cables, sound only and not built quality, or looks only and not materials quality).

 Jude DID compare the sound. Of course, others might have different subjective evaluations of the sound.

 I think VD, being a good company and all, probably DOES mean for people to make the advertised comparison.

 But if not, that would suck. And I'd strongly disagree with those who'd say that claims in ads or campaign promises or whatever can be made up just for fun.


----------



## Dreamslacker

Quote:


 _Originally posted by daycart1 _
*Look, when a company advertises that their $x product is meant to compete with $xx products, they are certainly inviting competition and comparison.

 This is compatible with the comparison's being partial (e.g. for cables, sound only and not built quality, or looks only and not materials quality).

 Jude DID compare the sound. Of course, others might have different subjective evaluations of the sound.

 I think VD, being a good company and all, probably DOES mean for people to make the advertised comparison.

 But if not, that would suck. And I'd strongly disagree with those who'd say that claims in ads or campaign promises or whatever can be made up just for fun. * 
 

Actually, they seem to be playing on words there.

  Quote:


 It is designed to replace typical stock cord and to *compete with the value* of the most popular $500 power cords from the traditional electronic design theories. 
 

This can be taken to mean:

The VD cord is capable of sound that is as good as $500 cables.
The cost-performance ratio of the VD competes with that of $500 cables.[/list=1] 

 You do realise they could use the second meaning to their advantage if people are not satisfied with the product and the first meaning to advertise.

 Especially so when things like this suffer from diminishing returns. Getting a $500 cable may not give you a proportional difference as the price than the VD cord.

 It's just that the 2 dudes have interpreted the statement in different ways. Neither are wrong.


----------



## wasifazim

Any time a discussion degenerates into an argument over semantics, it's time to move on..we've all got enough information to formulate our own opinions of the Virtual Dynamics Basic Power (which is what this is about; it's not about the company or any of their other products) and as such this has been quite the public service announcement.

 - Wasif.


----------



## Phreon

Yikes. Not since when I haunted forums where tirades about Leica glass flourished have I seen such nitpicking and venom!

 First, I will assert that I am not an electrical engineer, but I have gained some experience over the years tinkering and futzing with amateur radios and other projects.

 I just can't see how anyone could justify a $500 power cable for their stereo. First, to my twisted mind, even if you were to connect your amp to your house's circuitry with a superconducter, you still wouldn't be able to pull any more power than what the cheap ol' Romex in your walls can handle; you'd have to run the cable all the way back to the nearest transformer. Second, if you have to worry about the filtering capabilities of your power cable, what does that say about the quality of your amplifier's power supply?

 I'm fully aware that the quality of the power cable can make a big difference in the quality of the sound during brief transients in the music when the amp is demanding high current, but talk about the air, warmth and soundstage of a 120v feed baffles me. 

 Shouldn't a good quality, heavy gauge, RFI shielded cable capable of dealing with high currents be more than enough?

 I'm not critizing anyone, but I just can't see the benefit in a $900 power cable. For the price, wouldn't a better DAC or adding acoustic tiles to your room have a greater effect?

 Phreon


----------



## kelly

Phreon
 Typically, I agree with this--your money goes further toward improving the sound with components than it does with cables in general. Or, another way to say it might be: Cables are like on tiny part of a component.

 However: cables can definitely represent a bottleneck in high end systems and they definitely can make an audible difference. I have what I consider to be pretty well built power cables--twisted pair design, shielded, hospital grade connectors and yet, I've heard cables that sounded better in my system from JPS Labs.

 There are a dozen theories for why power cables matter. The one I like the most is the one suggesting that the power supplies from the components generate noise that enters the power cable outside the component. Power supplies that emit less interference woudl therefore force cables into greater irrelevance. This may be one reason why some CD players and amps benefit more from cables than others (and if you search AA you'll find correlations and judging by how much they argue I don't think we can chalk it up to peer pressure). Of course, you can't tell by the brand of the unit, it's on a model by model basis which could support the idea that it's specific to the transformer used. Again, just one theory. There are others.

 Similar to this is the theory with digital cables. Digital cables shouldn't matter. Those of us with any logical function left in our brains want to believe that no difference would be gained from switching digital cables. Once again, I've heard the difference myself. It's there. It's somewhat alarming, actually, because it's so obvious between some cables that it's impossible to dismiss out of hand. The theory here is that the DAC isn't doing a proper job of filtering and reclocking so the jitter is being passed in. Again, this would offer an explanation for why digital cables matter more on some DACs than others (and on transports).

 Sorry--the point is that cables do matter and that things aren't as simple as they appear. But *in general* I agree, worry about your components first and foremost.


----------



## Phreon

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*However: cables can definitely represent a bottleneck in high end systems and they definitely can make an audible difference. I have what I consider to be pretty well built power cables--twisted pair design, shielded, hospital grade connectors and yet, I've heard cables that sounded better in my system from JPS Labs.

 There are a dozen theories for why power cables matter. The one I like the most is the one suggesting that the power supplies from the components generate noise that enters the power cable outside the component. Power supplies that emit less interference woudl therefore force cables into greater irrelevance. This may be one reason why some CD players and amps benefit more from cables than others (and if you search AA you'll find correlations and judging by how much they argue I don't think we can chalk it up to peer pressure). Of course, you can't tell by the brand of the unit, it's on a model by model basis which could support the idea that it's specific to the transformer used. Again, just one theory. There are others.* 
 

Being that I'm of a scientific bent, the fact that there are dozens of unproven, unverified, untested theories really throws up a red flag in my mind.The problem I have with these theories is that if there is such a difference in sound, there should be measurable improvements in the cable. I'm just not convinced that manufacturing a conductor to .00009% physical tolerances makes any difference whatsoever, other than to really impress the consumer with useless numbers. I generally consider marketing brochures to be just slightly less useful than a quadriplegic horse.

 If the power supply in your amp is anything approaching "quality", it will have filter capacitors, chokes, etc. included in it's design that will be much more effective at cleaning up the power than a sheath of ferrous "pixie dust" around the cable ever could hope to be. Wrapping a power cable around a ferrite toriod is moderately effective because of a simple "choke" effect to put it simply, but encasing the cord in a granulated ferrite material should have in infinitesimally smaller effect in comparison. I can't see how the sheath of ANY cable can effect the signal passing through it beyond shielding it from RFI/EMI and subtly effecting the capacitance (which should make no difference at such low frequencies). We're not talking about microwave transmission line here; it's 120v/60Hz power cable. Even if you could build a cable that's perfectly shielded, attaching that expensive 3 foot cord to the hundreds of feet of unshilded cable between it and the power transformer for your neighborhood renders the effort useless. Building a $900 cable that "tries" to filter noise is just plain silly when there are more effective and less costly ways to do it. $900 will buy you a very, very nice power conditioner. 

 I have a feeling expesive power cables improve the sound of an amplifier because they A) are built better and can deliver the power (less resistance) better than a stock one and B) They look better and cost an arm and a leg, so they MUST sound better. I would be willing to wager that beyond a certain level of quality, say $100, in a blind test, even the best "golden ears" audiophile couldn't tell the difference between power cables at a rate exceeding random chance.

 Please read the comments at this site: http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/johndunlavyonwire.htm

 At the above mentioned site, the author performed subjected tests using self proclaimed audiophiles to see if there was a detectable dfference in the sound of several brands of high end speaker cable. When the subjects knew what cable was being used, they always picked the most impressive looking cable as sounding the best. Later, the subjects were again asked to evaluate cables, only in a blind test, and they could not differentiate between a high end cable and good quality #20 zip cord!

 I propose that if in blind tests, audio transmission cables cannot be discerned, then the difference between power cables should be even less detectable. I think that when we reach the point where we're purchasing components with such a ridiculously terrible price to performance ratio, human psychology explains the "soundstage" of a power cable much more than science. It's the placebo effect, plain and simple.

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*
 Similar to this is the theory with digital cables. Digital cables shouldn't matter. Those of us with any logical function left in our brains want to believe that no difference would be gained from switching digital cables. Once again, I've heard the difference myself. It's there. It's somewhat alarming, actually, because it's so obvious between some cables that it's impossible to dismiss out of hand. The theory here is that the DAC isn't doing a proper job of filtering and reclocking so the jitter is being passed in. Again, this would offer an explanation for why digital cables matter more on some DACs than others (and on transports).

 Sorry--the point is that cables do matter and that things aren't as simple as they appear. But *in general* I agree, worry about your components first and foremost. * 
 

The difference between (optical) digital cables should be quite easy to quantify. The idea that an optical cable can effect jitter is junk science. If your CDP is producing bad/jittery data , the world's best cable will not correct it. Jitter is a problem with data in the time domain. Unless we're talking about lengths of cable where the speed of light becomes an issue, any cable with quality level above "crap" will have no effect at all. Even at continental distances, jitter is not a problem because the time delay is a constant. At lengths and data transmission rates of an order of magnitued higher than what is commonly seen in a hi-fi system, cable induced data loss (other than from a physical defect) is rarely a problem and jitter unrelated to data loss *never* is. A packet of data will always take the same time to travel the length of a cable, period. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity proves this.

 I concede that the quality of a fiber optic cable could cause the optical tranceiver of a cheap deck to drop packets and have a definite and measurable effect on the sound. However, beyond the shape of the connector, the functional difference between a $50 data quality fiber optic and $200 "audiophile" quality cable exists entirely in the psychological domain.

 Of course the quality of your cables can have a dramatic effect on the sound quality of your systems, but beyond a certain level, the listener's satisfaction has more to do with the "warm fuzzy" of having bought the "best" equipment, not any measurable advantage. If you can't measure the difference, it doesn't exist.


 Phreon


 All typos,spelling and grammatical errors are due to defects in your monitor.


----------



## kelly

Phreon
 It's great that you've made your decision about cables without listening for yourself. This will inevitably save you a lot of time and money. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't participate in threads discussing specific cables if you're against the notion that they matter at all. Other users have been outright banned for repetitive, obnoxious posts in every thread about the subject and the "DBT-free" label is a testament to the general atmosphere here. I'm not a moderator and I'm not telling you what to do--just a friendly suggestion.

 Science is not measuring the world and then only after you can prove it on paper sticking your head out the window to verify it's there. Science is observing the world with your own senses and then trying to find reasonable explanation for what has been observed. It's clear that your view is that all of our observations are pyschologically induced nonsense, but again, to debate that over and over again is not the purpose of this forum.


----------



## DarkAngel

The ghost of Ricky has come back to haunt us this halloween
 boooooooooooooo.........


----------



## Zin_Ramu

I'm actually glad that Phreon posted. I've been reading a long post double blind testing on AVSforum and have recently done some tests myself which have shown that I have fallen pray to my own psychological despositions. 

 Yet I understand Kelly's point that continuosly debating that whether observations are pyschologically induced nonsense is not the purpose of this forum.

 What I *personally* would like to see is just a quick mention of whether a test was done blind or not whenever a review is made, so that those who do consider this important are aware of the circumstances.

 Sorry to go further OT on this thread, but it seems to have strayed long ago


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Zin_Ramu _
*I'm actually glad that Phreon posted. I've been reading a long post double blind testing on AVSforum and have recently done some tests myself which have shown that I have fallen pray to my own psychological despositions. 

* 
 

Personally, the only tests, impressions, and reviews that I consider valid are the ones I conduct in my own system.


----------



## Phreon

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*Phreon
 It's great that you've made your decision about cables without listening for yourself. This will inevitably save you a lot of time and money. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't participate in threads discussing specific cables if you're against the notion that they matter at all. Other users have been outright banned for repetitive, obnoxious posts in every thread about the subject and the "DBT-free" label is a testament to the general atmosphere here. I'm not a moderator and I'm not telling you what to do--just a friendly suggestion.* 
 

I'll admit I have never had the opportunity or desire to audition power cables of such rarified status. You're also right about staying on topic; I should start a new thread. _However_, I defy you to provide the quote where I stated that cables don't matter at all.

 I've bumped into this issue in various forums on various subjects, and not one single time has anyone ever been able to provide even the tiniest shred of _objective_ evidence to back up their emotional claims. I *want* to believe that there is a real benefit in buying exceedingly expensive cables, but when neither the manufacturer or the consumer is able to provide any real scientifc reason that theirs are better, I remain skeptical.

 At one time, I had "silver" ears (not quite golden) and was able to hear leaky vacuum lines in cars and the squeal of just about every computer monitor in a 15 foot radius, but now I concede that my hearing has degenerated to the point that I may never hear the difference. However; using your digital cable example, if the data exiting both a cheap and expensive cables is *measured* to match the input data, the perceived sound difference between the two *must* be attributed to other factors.

 It behooves the customer to seek out why their expensive cables perform the way they do; there are only a few outcomes possible. Using a $500 power cable for example:

 A) Tests will prove that there is a measurable benefit in the design of said cable and the price is justified

 B)Tests will prove that there is a measurable benefit in the design of said cable, but the cost is not justified considering materials and techniques used.

 C)Tests will prove there is no measurable benefit and the cost is not justified under any circumstance.

 Certainly there is someone out there with the resources to shed some light on the subject





  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*
 Science is not measuring the world and then only after you can prove it on paper sticking your head out the window to verify it's there. Science is observing the world with your own senses and then trying to find reasonable explanation for what has been observed. It's clear that your view is that all of our observations are pyschologically induced nonsense, but again, to debate that over and over again is not the purpose of this forum. * 
 

I certainly do not believe that all of your observations are psychologically induced or are nonesense. I just want a verified explanation as to why super expensive power cables can effect the soundstage of an amp. I'm playing the part of Devil's Advocate to stimulate someone, anyone, into providing me with the tiniest shred of objective evidence.

 Science is not observing the world and then trying to find a reasonable explanation; that's religion and is why Galileo was tried as a heretic for proving that Earth is not the center of the solar system.

 Science is:

 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 

 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation

 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations

 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 The problem is that when arguing the virtues of high end power cables, Leica Glass or SACD for example, most people stop at number two. Formulating a hypothesis and then accepting it as fact is not science, it's religion.

 Let me reiterate that I WANT to believe. I learned through personal observation and then the study of other's experiments and data that yes, vinyl does produce better sound under the right conditions because of it's lack of digital artifacts, vintage analog synthesizers _do_ have a special sound again because of their lack of (measurable) digital artifacts and great dynamic range and tube amplifiers do sound warmer/cleaner because of (the measurable) way they produce even order harmonics compared to solid state equipment. Even though common wisdom said that all three tenets above were false, through observation and measurment, they were proven correct. We always knew that tube amps sound better; it was the corperations who tried to convice us otherwise and scientific reasoning vindicated us and proved what we knew all along. The same corperations who's best interest is to convince you that their $900 cable is worth the money you paid for it. 

 I did not realize this is a debate free forum and I apologize; I will advance no further comments on the subject (in this thread) unless solicited. Overall, a fascinating discussion, none the less. Head-Fi seems to attract people and spawn discussions (in most threads) that are a cut above the normal internet chatter and I do not wish to cause any change in that status.


 Phreon

 Any typographical or grammatical errors displayed are due to physical defects in your monitor.


----------



## kelly

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Phreon _
*Science is not observing the world and then trying to find a reasonable explanation;

 Science is:

 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
* 
 

You listed "observing" and then listed the steps of finding a reasonable explanation. My point was that step 1 is observation. By insisting on there being no difference between cables because you don't know how to measure it, you are bypassing step 1. I do not consider this more "scientific."

* Quote:


 Let me reiterate that I WANT to believe. 
 

*I don't. I don't own any stock in any cable producing company. Believing there is a difference only stands to cost me more money. I ONLY believe there are differences because I have heard them. My bias is against things that cost me money. However, I am not prone to ignoring my senses or writing them off as influenced by my imagination simply because my means were not scientific enough.

* Quote:


 I did not realize this is a debate free forum and I apologize 
 

*It is hardly a debate free forum and for some reason I find that amusing. It is a "DBT-free" forum or "double-blind testing free" meaning that the experience herein are subjective and crapping someone's subjective observations because they didn't use a double-blind method of testing is unappreciated. I don't know that there is a policy and I'm not a moderator regardless--I'm only trying to explain the sentiment.


----------



## aeberbach

Quote:


 designed to replace typical stock cord and to compete with the value of the most popular $500 power cords 
 

...to compete with the VALUE OF the most popular $500 power cords...

 Does this mean that VD don't believe in cables either? Is this their subtle way of cautioning those who read between the lines? 

 time I ducked


----------



## Phreon

You solicited this response....

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _
*You listed "observing" and then listed the steps of finding a reasonable explanation. My point was that step 1 is observation. By insisting on there being no difference between cables because you don't know how to measure it, you are bypassing step 1. I do not consider this more "scientific."
* 
 

I have not insisted there is no difference between cables; I have only insisted that there has not been any objective explanation put forth. It is not a matter of weather I or anyone else knows how to measure what we are discussing. It is extremely rare to see any measurements at all. If you tested two cables (designed to carry analog signals) using all the methods known, found them to be electrically identical and still insisted that one of them sounds better, I would conclude that there is no known difference, concede that you in fact could be hearing a benefit, but would conclude that it's unlikely, there is no way to prove it and would agree to disagree. This is where I stand on the testing of analog circuits.

 Due to the nature of digital data however, if the data coming from both cable A and B is identical, there can be no difference in sound quality. Any EE from freshman to PhD level will tell you that. In that scenario, the advantage _is_ in the observers head.

 In itself, step one, "Observation", is useless and no different than fantasy and random conjecture if not followed up with the rest of the steps commonly known as the "Scientific Method". There is no such thing as "more scientific". Like being pregnant, it either is or it isn't. Skipping any of the four steps is bad science at best.

  Quote:


 _Originally posted by kelly _[
*
 It is hardly a debate free forum and for some reason I find that amusing. It is a "DBT-free" forum or "double-blind testing free" meaning that the experience herein are subjective and crapping someone's subjective observations because they didn't use a double-blind method of testing is unappreciated. I don't know that there is a policy and I'm not a moderator regardless--I'm only trying to explain the sentiment. * 
 

If I knew this was a double blind free forum, I would never have posted my seed comment. How can anyone have an intelligent discussion about a phenomenon while at the same time purposely rendering their assertions unprovable? The very idea of avoiding double blind testing strikes me as being of a "head in the sand" attitude, much like that of the flat earthers or fake moon mission believers. Since we know that the placebo effect is real, most people try to eliminate it in an effort to provide valid, uncolored, objective information.

 Of course you'll not take my message seriously. But consider how you would feel and if it would change your opinion if 15 of the most respected audiophiles in the world, including people you personally know and trust, were unable to differentiate between your favorite hi-buck cable and the Radio Shack version in a double blind test. Would you still ignore their results and live on a flat Earth?


 Phreon

 Any typographical or grammatical errors you detect are caused solely by geomagnetic variences effecting your monitor's accuracy quotient.


----------



## kelly

Phreon
 "Head in the sand" would imply ignoring new information or evidence. The fact is that everything you've just posted we've all seen before--countless times before, enough so that we've not only gotten tired and bored of the argument but actually tried to avoid it by titling the forum as such. Whatever you may think, you simply have not introduced any new arguments. There are countless rebuttles as well, but rather than wasting more time restating them, I suggest the search feature here, at Audio Asylum and nearly any other discussion area of the internet where cables are discussed. While there, also seek out the term "flame bait."


----------



## Phreon

I'll look up the term "Flame Bait" if you'll do a google search for the definitions of the words "rational", "rationalization" and "scientific".

 I'm not trying to be judgemental, it's just that some of us (like me) couldn't imagine spending such a huge clump of cash with out any evidence other than people's impressions. I'm of the opinion that there are so many subjective opinions out there that objective facts are the only ones you can truely rely on. Gimme the information and I'll make the decision for myself. And if I swore something to be true, but data from multiple sources proved it to be otherwise, I'd seriously consider if my impressions are biased.


 Some people live by their emotions and others by their minds; the twain shall never meet.


 Phreon


----------



## Phreon

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pigmode _
*Personally, the only tests, impressions, and reviews that I consider valid are the ones I conduct in my own system. * 
 

I agree. But wouldn't you be cheating yourself if you tested items with preconcieved notions about them? Wouldn't having a friend help you perform a simple blind test produce more valid, unbiased results?

 Phreon


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Phreon _
*I'm of the opinion that there are so many subjective opinions out there that objective facts are the only ones you can truely rely on. Gimme the information and I'll make the decision for myself. And if I swore something to be true, but data from multiple sources proved it to be otherwise, I'd seriously consider if my impressions are biased.
* 
 

You can't have an objective measurement if you don't know what to measure. Therein lies the rub. I believe that at some point, many of the electrical and mechanical phenomena that affect audio reproduction will be much better understood than they are now. However, I'm not about to wait for this to occur before enjoying the best sound I can. In the end, the goal is subjective enjoyment of the music, by whatever means you get there.


----------



## pigmode

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Phreon _
*I agree. But wouldn't you be cheating yourself if you tested items with preconcieved notions about them? Wouldn't having a friend help you perform a simple blind test produce more valid, unbiased results?

 Phreon * 
 

In a theoretical sense I might agree, but my direct experience has already provided the answers I need. The sonic implications of my cable swaps were clearly recognizable.


----------



## dparrish

Phreon,

 Being TRULY objective/rational also means being willing to consider the possibilities based on experience, not just on the ability to measure something using known criteriae. 

 As Kelly said, I, too, would prefer not to hear the differences in cabling, as I am a school music teacher (and don't make alot of money), but I DO. In my experience, there is a difference in most every cable I've heard. This applies to my listening to many interconnects, speaker cables, and digital connects (I in fact heard a digital coax that Kelly brought over--I would NEVER have thought there to be ANY difference in digital cables--but there was).

 There is a long history of scientific knowledge advancing DESPITE what the concensus of current scientists/scientific knowledge would argue. I have spent enough time on rec.audio.highend (the source you quoted for the cable test) to know that the group that runs that forum has DEFINATELY made up its mind (read=close-minded) that cables do not/could not possibly sound different. You seem to claim that those of us who DO hear these differences are either experiencing a psychological phenomena or are just not rational; I, on the other hand, would say that we are just more open-minded, willing to accept the differences we hear, without any (currently)scientific measurements to back up our claims 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I would politely suggest that you drop this attempt to persuade us, because we cannot deny that we hear these differences, despite what others may hear/not hear.


----------



## dparrish

Having said what I did above, I DO understand your skepticism regarding the idea that the more expensive a cable is, the better it must sound.

 There certainly are people out there who would take advantage of audiophile dollars without really delivering on claims--this is true of any industry though. The fact that there are no generally agreed-upon measurements to associate with a particular cable's sound DOES further complicate the problem. 

 But this doesn't mean that those differences don't exist, or that more expensive cables can't sound better. In fact, my experience has been that, MOST of the time, more expensive TENDS to sound better (to my ears). This is a generalization and is not always true. As more is learned about how to make cables sound better (purer/fewer-crystalled copper, for example) and more companies implement these features, the cost of better sounding cables does tend to come down over time--at least that is my perception. But, at least based on MY experience, more expensive often translates into better sound. Occasionally one finds a bargain which might sound almost as good as a very expensive item, but this has largely been the exception for me. 
 But then again, I SOMETIMES prefer the food of a cheap restaurant to that of an expensive one, but this is a rarity as well.


----------



## Phreon

Quote:


 _Originally posted by dparrish _
*Phreon,

 Being TRULY objective/rational also means being willing to consider the possibilities based on experience, not just on the ability to measure something using known criteriae. 

 As Kelly said, I, too, would prefer not to hear the differences in cabling, as I am a school music teacher (and don't make alot of money), but I DO. In my experience, there is a difference in most every cable I've heard. This applies to my listening to many interconnects, speaker cables, and digital connects (I in fact heard a digital coax that Kelly brought over--I would NEVER have thought there to be ANY difference in digital cables--but there was).

 There is a long history of scientific knowledge advancing DESPITE what the concensus of current scientists/scientific knowledge would argue. I have spent enough time on rec.audio.highend (the source you quoted for the cable test) to know that the group that runs that forum has DEFINATELY made up its mind (read=close-minded) that cables do not/could not possibly sound different. You seem to claim that those of us who DO hear these differences are either experiencing a psychological phenomena or are just not rational; I, on the other hand, would say that we are just more open-minded, willing to accept the differences we hear, without any (currently)scientific measurements to back up our claims 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would politely suggest that you drop this attempt to persuade us, because we cannot deny that we hear these differences, despite what others may hear/not hear. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

I certainly do not want to come off as sounding dismissive. I just find it very curious that a group of people could be so sure of their convictions, yet at the same time actively avoid double blind testing that could confirm their ability to distinguish cables once and for all. We are all succeptible to the effects of our hopes and desires. Can you ascribe the the popularity of Bose speakers to any other phenomena? Bose speakers are big name items and are expensive. They *must* be good!

 Am I close minded for saying te sky is blue and the Earth is round? Why are the rec.audio folks close minded for stating that there is no significant difference between cables when in double blind tests, people cannot distinguish the difference? What other explanation can you offer for their sudden lack of discrimination skills when they cannot _see_ which cable they are _listening_ to? How can you dismiss baisc laws of physics that refute the manufacturer's claims?

 I had a discussion the other day with a friend about the difference between Excedrin and Excedrin Migraine. They swear that Excedrin Migraine works much better. Even after pointing out on the product labels that both items are identical, they still would not agree that the "migraine formula" is not more effective than the "regular formula" Were they being open minded or closed minded? Is the difference anything _other_ than the placebo effect?

 Isn't it close minded to dismiss an entire group of people because they don't hold your views? Are astrophysicists closed minded for refusing all arguments that the earth is flat?

 As I've stated before, my mission is not to persuade anyone. I just want some answers to why a $500 power cable should make a difference. An answer beyond pure conjecture. Both you and Kelly have done nothing but say in so many words, "You ask to many questions, I don't like that, please stop". 

 I'm sorry if you or Kelly find my desire to gather facts obnoxious. I have not made any derisive statements and really don't want to argue with anyone, but if someone challenges accepted scientific laws using bad logic, I _*will*_ respond. Like I said, it's unfortunate that you or anyone are troubled by my questions...I admit I'm annoyingly persistant though.

 I read the Virtual Dynamics (I found that name ironic, look up the def. of virtual) technology section and nearly laughed myself out of my couch. Most of the claims they make are only vaguely applicable in the audio range of frequencies (not 60hz power) and the rest are outright fabrications. 

 For example, here's their blurb explaining their "Speed of Light" technology:

 "Electrons can travel at the speed of light. The capacitance of a cable will often limit how close to light speed an electron can reach. By placing an Acceleration Field within the path of the electrons, we accelerate the electron back to the speed of light. This results in a great increase in the cable's power throughput.

*Our engineers have not yet fully put a finger on why Speed of Light is so dramatic. We expect to soon have a vast understanding to share with you on our new technology.
*"

 Accceleration field? Have not fully put a finger on why Speed of Light is so dramatic? I wonder why that is? Why would speeding up the travel of electrons to your amplifier's power supply via an "acceleration field"(not possible) effect it's soundstage? The speed of electrons, or more precisely the speed that electrons flow at below those in free space, in a conductor, is directly related to the capacitance of the insulator surrounding it. The common term for this is "velocity factor". When dealing with frequencies and voltages withinin the realm of your household supply, velocity factor has no effect. To put it simply, the whole explanation they give is a load of crap. That goes for their explanation of the "Coloumb Effect" in their "Dynamic Filtering" technology as well. And the "Poly Phenyl Either", correctly known as Polyphenyl ETHER, in their ProTecX treatment is found in many common contact cleaners and lubricants. It's been around for years. Not that revolutionary.


 The VD Basic cable may very well have measurable benefits, but the the complete load of hogwash given on their page is not the reason. 

 So can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why these high expense cables are better, other than saying, "Cause I know it's true, science is bad, neener neener neener" ?


 Phreon

 Any typographical or grammatical errors you my sense are due to the current solar flux shifting the aperture grid of your monitor.


----------



## Hirsch

This is a DBT-free forum. Since there seems to be no place else for this to go, I'm locking the thread.


----------

