The Truth About Power Cords and there "Real" Price to Performance

I think there is more practical value in dodgealum's post than most other posts in this thread. What you are plugging into is going to make a much bigger difference than anything w.r.t. equipment interactions. Some observations:

• Good shielding is never going to hurt a power cord.
• A good ground between equipment is almost never going to hurt.
• You can make a better ground connection between your equipment with $100 of braided copper strapping and $5.00 of serrated washers than $10,000 of cables.
• A lower resistance AC (line/neutral) connection will result in More EMI
• A lower resistance AC (L/N) connection will likely result in More high frequency noise generated on the DC rails of the equipment
  
• A lower resistance AC (L/N) connection will likely result in less low frequency ripple on the power rails of a power amplifier.
  
• The power supply rails of a low power piece of equipment will probably have less total noise on them with a more resistive AC (L/N) connection.
• A low resistance AC connection (L/N) between your power amplifier and your other equipment will allow the power amplifier to dirty the AC more on your other equipment, than a high resistance between the two (but you want the ground to be low resistance).
• A low resistance (heavier gauge) wire from your main breaker panel to your equipment/power amplifier will reduce the amount of lower frequency AC line noise your power amplifier will generate (where your equipment is) but will increase the high frequency noise.
• There is no guarantee that an engineer/designer at a boutique audio company is highly competent at power supply design or even knows/understands all the points made above.
• If you are wondering where the bottleneck is in your system, it is highly likely that it is your speakers or the room, and maybe your source.

dodgealum1,030 posts11-13-2019 5:09pm

So, what I learned from this experience is that the price-performance ratio depends on more than the cable alone--that the design of what you are plugging into (and probably the quality of the power coming out of your outlet) can alter the performance considerably, skewing the ratio depending on the application.

That 10A Skillsaw can draw 60+ amps on startup, and can also draw temporarily when loaded much more than 10A as well.


A large ClassAB, ClassD, or Class A/AB amplifier turned up loud can also pull greater than 15A for a small portion of the AC waveform, though unlike the Skillsaw, the average current won't exceed 15A.

hoghead112 posts11-14-2019 8:43amMy brother is a carpenter and he told me about using lower grade extension cables for power tools and there is a difference when using a higher amperage designed cable vs one that is not. The Skillsaw I was using had more power and came up to speed quicker and felt like it had more torque than a lower grade cable. I have always believed that the start to a better sounding audio system starts with what comes out of the wall socket first. Better cables and noise reduction treatment is the start of a great sounding system, (Crap in, Crap out).

You would think with all that cost of the SR and ET power conditioning units, that they would get rid of almost any noise.

There is nothing factual about claiming that humans hear "Principally via that transient" or most of the rest of that paragraph.

While it is true that the initial arrival wavefront is dominant in sound localization, that is primarily due to group-delay/phase based inter-aural processing (difference in what reaches each ear), not in the exact shape of that wavefront. We also give dominance to processing of the initial wavefront and reject echoes and reflections, to a degree, for transient sounds, which gives credence to the importance of transient response. The brain tends to lump the first 35msec of the transient together, so transient has to be put in perspective.

However, to say this is "principally" how we hear, is just not at all supportable. It is not even supportable for localization which includes level cues, frequency cues, etc. which in music can be as important as timing cues. It is just a part of our auditory system for processing threats. Evolutionary changes to support speech and better interpret threats greatly extend what it means to "hear".

teo_audio1,228 posts11-14-2019 8:58amAnd then added in again, on top of that..is,...that humans hear principally via that transient and all complex transient systems...and we define our hearing limits in the small tiny area of perfection of delivery/shaping/levels/timing of those complex transient loads

.

When you have base Porsche Cayman owners claiming their base Porsche will blow the doors off a 2020 Supra just because it is a Porsche or that their $2,500,  5 liter capacity Louis Vuitton shoulder bag will carry twice as much as someone else's  $50 dollar, 6 liter capacity shoulder bag, then, perhaps then you would have a valid analogy.

The vast majority of audiophiles, the one's that have 10's of thousands invested in their audio systems are not uber-rich, they are typically middle class, upper-middle class, and lower end of the 1% earners who have decided this is something they want to invest in, same as someone may invest in a high end car, or boat, or ....

What I never ever see is the behavior you claim below with the exception of the odd case of snark against an uber expensive piece of equipment. Buy a $50,000 set of speakers, and all you will get is compliments. Spend $50,000 on room construction and treatments, and you will also get compliments and wows. Ditto for $10K on an amplifier. Heck, even $20K+ on a vinyl setup rarely gets too much of a negative comment, and likely many complimenting how good it looks. Spend $5,000 on a tweak that is hooked up in a system with "average" speakers in an acoustically questionable room, and then claim amazing improvements ... whole different ball game and it has nothing to do with luxury, or financial capability.

The only venom I see w.r.t. uber expensive, but questionable items is straw-man arguments like the one you just made below.

swanlee5979 posts11-14-2019 1:58pmPretty much EVERY category of product has an extremely expensive luxury class of that product type.

It is only in audio I have seen such blatant crude behaviour towards even the existence of such a class in product and those they may be able to afford them.

It would be like a Toyota owners harrasing a Porsche owenr insulting them for buying such a thing cause their Toyota gets them from point A to Point B just like their Porsche.

You could do that analogy with Watches, Handbags, clothes literally any consumer product type.

Why is it only the Audio realm where the venom comes out like this just for the existence of that class of product?

A novel thought would be demonstrating their products actually do what they claim, but sure, break down the price points. GK will get in every thread and spam them anyway.

Have to disagree. Your greatest determinants are your speakers and room, followed by your TT setup if you are doing vinyl, and then your amp.

limbc2 posts11-15-2019 7:00pmIf you hv ultra deep pockets, its nice luxury to spent BIG sums on hifi to get closer to ' true' sound.
Even then, u can get the most value only if u balance yr spent. Yr power cable shd preferably be at 10-20% of yr total spent.
As there is only so much a great power cord can do. The greatest determinants of SQ will be yr amps n speakers, followed by the other peripherals.
But yes, choosing the best sounding and best value power cord /cable within a defined range of budget is still very tough without A/B test. That's where perhaps experienced audiogons can help. Rgds.

You can never record and make any analysis with microphones or YouTube. Has to be live. I am in Atlanta regularly. Count me in! 

mambacfa,

Not to rain on your parade, but if your test had been made blind, i.e.  you had no clue what cord was attached at any point in time, your test would have validity. You may think you have superhuman hearing, but you could have just as easily proved confirmation bias as you did sound differences.

Not sure what your correct gauge for the circuit is supposed to convey. I am not arguing one way or the other, I just don't see the relevance. Peak currents on the AC waveform can be higher than average rating to AC waveform modulation at the equipment can happen. Obviously the run breaker box to wall plug is more important as is equipment to equipment ground.  Again, not saying the cord will make a difference, just don't think that statement about gauge and current is relevant.

Of course, that had nothing to do with the GT audioworks speakers working reasonably well in typically awful trade-show rooms, nor the designer undertstanding how to get the most out of his speakers in that situation .. nor all the other good quality components? 

Best of show is like having a least ugly dog show. You have different grades of awful and best sound is far more indicative of a particular speakers interaction with a room, and/or how much effort the exhibitor is willing to put into ad-hoc room treatments. I have heard $250K+ systems sound awful at shows, and $20K systems sound stunning.

dimora,
Did you know the instaneous voltage drop on a 50 foot run of 12awg can reach 3-4 volts when you get the 30+ amp peaks of some power amplifiers?  You had not mentioned whether you were discussing cords or house wiring at that point as well, and you have brought up the other wire as well. 


More critical to the gauge of the wire in the cords would be quality of the equipment to equipment ground connections. There has also been real evidence of noise on AC lines coupling into signal lines in "typical" audio setups, so shielding also makes sense.

You will note I have not said either way that cords can or cannot produce audible differences, but long runs of Romex can in amplifiers depending on how well their power supplies are designed, and it is a poor assumption that boutique audio amplifiers and other equipment is well designed.

Farther up on this thread or maybe another I have expressed my views on "cords". I think you will find my views often similar to yours but more nuanced.


I have two runs of heavy gauge to a split outlet, same phase for both with grounds tied. Predates ACFI/GFCI. Was discussing on another thread. I can't even get the type of breaker I used any more. 


Silver wire, etc , is marketing, hence why no validated testing. Heavy ground, heavy gauge for amps, good shielding all beneficial ... Most of the time. For some equipment, arguably, resistance helps .... less AC noise and EMI.


Equipment to equipment grounds are arguably most critical and there are much cheaper ways of fixing that. If someone puts heavy capacitance from DC circuit ground to chassis ground, then things get dicey.

You are trying to take complex things that happen in 3 dimensional sound field that is time variant and apply that to an simple electrical signal with absolutely no proof of the claims you effectively make about said electrical signal


A two channel initially mechanical system, i.e. the ear, with a 20khz bandwidth, if you are lucky, can detect microsecond timing differentials ... Just like two microphones with a 20khz bandwidth digitized at 44.1Khz can resolve microsecond time of arrival differences. This is very well understood and done day in and day out with all manner of signals.  There is no magic, there is no unknown branch of physics not yet understood, and even if we don’t understand all the neural pathways that does not change the fact that our hearing starts as a mechanical system that has not been shown to extend in bandwidth past 20Khz. Even experiments that indicated potential detection of ultrasonics were not able to show ultimately that it was not subharmonic resonances that were detected.


Your statement about us not having the hardware for electrical fine signal analysis required for human acoustic testing is simply not supportable. That claim is based on misunderstandings and knowledge gaps such as the belief that 44.1Khz (or 192Khz) digitization cannot carry within subsample, microsecond timing information. It can, within the bandwidth of the hearing system. Couple a flawed understanding of digitized and reconstructed analog signals and the information they carry and the potential for a bandwidth limited system to provide detection capability much faster than that bandwidth and you get the statements below which are not based in facts nor supportable with anything passing for evidence.

We don’t have any hardware available to us that can come close to that level of auditory or electrical signal fine analysis.

I am there for work every 8 weeks approximately, but no guarantees on a Friday. I am certainly in. I don't think it matters if me or Dimora is a believer or not, as long as you are. If you can pick your cables out blind (or between a basic shielded cable and yours) then you have proved they make a difference.

I don't mean generically, I mean can you put some numbers to this characteristics? I.e. at what inductance does a speaker cable start to matter? At what capacitance does an interconnect start to matter?

turnbowm43 posts11-19-2019 6:51pm"If you are able to relate the sonic differences to cable construction, I would assume you can relate that to measurable engineering quantities?"
 
atdavid,

Absolutely. I have found, for example, that low inductance is a desirable characteristic in speaker cables. On the other hand, low capacitance seems to be the key for interconnects.

Is there any scientific reasoning behind your choice of audio cables?

Very good shielding primarily on interconnects, and a properly connected shield and good connectors to ensure a proper connection. With the exception of a decade plus ago on a cable that intentionally colored the sound, I have never detected capacitance that would be impactful to sound in my components. As capacitance is so low, dielectric absorption becomes a non-issue, and since interconnects are no impedance matched, not worried about that either.

For speakers, heavy gauge with intertwined connectors mainly for shielding, though I have never perceived an issue. Again, not really worried about inductance as any cable inductance is buried in the noise floor of component values in the speaker. I did accidentally make a speaker cable with wickedly high capacitance that made an amplifier unstable, but that would not have been considered normal construction.

Now about those values of capacitance and inductance where they become an issue?

turnbrown,

If you are able to relate the sonic differences to cable construction, I would assume you can relate that to measurable engineering quantities?

turnbowm41 posts11-19-2019 5:53pmvinylguy2016,

Being an engineer (EE) with 30+ years of experience in the industry, I understand where you're coming from. During listening tests of audio cables (speaker & interconnects), however, I found audible differences which can be explained by examination of material (conductor & insulator) properties and design differences (coaxial, twisted pair, etc.).

andy2,

An instability does not mean it has to oscillate, it could simply mean a settling issue, and to your point, an impact on the sound.

And no, turnbowm, my experience accidentally making more of a capacitor than a cable is not a perfect example. Kimber cable is typically 30-100pf/foot, I think the higher Cardas is close to 500pF/ft. I was close to 100nF for a 12 foot length.


turnbown, if there are no specific values for inductance/capacitance, then how do you know you were comparing cables with higher/lower values?

There are no specific values/limits for inductance and capacitance because of variables in the application. Your experience with amplifier instability using high capacitance speaker cables is a perfect example.

For the same reason an RC-snubber across a diode or FET is not a Zobel network ....

Originally patented by Polk 30ish years ago.

It is not a Zobel network, though it looks the same, it performs a much different function.

A Zobel network is placed, typically across the woofer, so that as the impedance of the woofer goes up, the Zobel network simulates a constant impedance. That constant impedance allows the crossover to work properly. These were used in speakers well before Polk.


Polk patented putting an RC-damper/snubber across the speaker terminals. The purpose of this was to dampen high frequency oscillations.

turnbowm50 posts11-20-2019 2:14pm
atdavid432 posts11-20-2019 10:10am"Originally patented by Polk 30ish years ago."

Matt Polk did indeed patent the use of Zobel networks in loudspeakers. That was in response to power amps self-destructing when using Polk’s high-capacitance Cobra speaker cables.

The concept of Zobel networks, however, was developed by Otto Zobel of Bell Labs in 1923.

The problem with most cable claims, at least from the MFR claims is that they always work. 


The argument w.r.t. the 50 feet of ROMEX before the plug sounds good and for some aspects of performance is valid. What it does not address is differential voltages between equipment locally, usually most influenced by grounds, though ground line interaction is possible. Do you need $20K of power cords to solve this? No, $100 of copper strapping between equipment grounds will do far more.  There is the potential for power cord to interconnect EMI, but again you don't need a super expensive cord to fix.


W.r.t. speaker cables, inductance and capacitance can make some differences at high frequencies but so can humidity and likely larger effects unless you are running electrostatics in which case it would be significant. Gauge and inductance can make differences in response of 1/10s of a db depending on cable and speaker and varied with the speaker impedance.  Audible ... Highly questionable and again, doesn't take $10k.  And again, the claim that This cable will make all systems sound better is unlikely to be factual at all as results are highly system dependent.


Last, for all the magic claims, there really is no magic. Resistance, inductance and capacitance will be dominant, skin resistance can be ruled out quickly with stranded wire, transmission line effects only play when you have a very wide bandwidth unstable amplifier, and dielectric absorption is easily measured and quantified. Talks of silver, copper, cryo, geometry, etc. are just marketing to impress those that do not understand how meaningless that is, and that if those things really made a difference it would be easily measured.


If you do a search on a technical claim and it Only shows up hits related to audiophiles you know it is probably bull.  Industries where performance means money or the difference between working or not (many scientific endeavours), and employ people who can track down sources of error, don't worry about these things. 


One caveat is much expectation is that a product is designed competently. I can be confident my Rohde and Schwartz spectrum analyzer was likely designed properly or at least as performance parameters were properly verified. Boutique audio gear not so much. Many use linear power supply topologies that were state of the art 50 years ago.



Summary: I know pretty well how cables could impact results, don't believe most impacts are actually audible, know that some things that should not be audible are due to poor design, and know that no cable component can be universally better.

Well admittedly they are nothing like the magic claims you make for your products GK, but no one's takes yours seriously so ......

+1

Anyone who makes such a comment about blind tests can't be taken seriously.

Many tests are not needed to disprove a claim, just one if the test matches the conditions in the claim and given how broad those claims often are in audio, or how specific they are, it is easy to replicate the conditions purported in the claim, right down to the specific test subject.

The great thing about blind testing is it isolates the auditory system as the exclusive "test". Really, that is all it does. It ensures that only the "ears" are used in the testing.

Oh look, a person who doesn't understand the concept quoting another person who doesn't understand the concept. I feel so much more enlightened now .... like at least 10lbs.

A blind test does nothing more than restrict the evaluation process to one thing, and one thing only .... your ears.  It will never cease to be funny audiophiles claiming their hearing is so infallible that they must see what they are reviewing to hear it properly.

It is easy GK as the person making the claim invariably includes the person making the claim as the test subject or an easily identified group/person, and their system or one they put together as the test system. It is not my fault they make themselves the convenient fish in a barrel.

Wrong again Cleeds.

If You claim that you can hear a difference on Your system, all I have to do is show that You cannot reliably detect the difference on Your system. Ditto if a supplier makes a generalization about a group of people with certain characteristics and systems with certain characteristics, and/or a system he is allowed to put together and a group he is allowed to put together. I only need to show lack of detection in that circumstance, which is near ideal for the person making the claim.

Me and prof already schooled you on this at least once, but you keep repeating all the tired and wrong arguments. Are you just going to drag out the same tired and wrong arguments again?

cleeds2,582 posts11-25-2019 10:33am atdavid

Many tests are not needed to disprove a claim, just one ...

That’s completely mistaken, and the claim reflects the blind faith some have in these tests. The simple truth is this: No single test or trial proves anything at all. Only multliple tests - preferably with multiple subjects - are likely to produce meaningful results.

This is why your personal "experiences" when evaluating new equipment should be as blind as possible, so you can eliminate bias which is exceptionally powerful.  Perceived significant changes in ones own personal system often disappear when bias (visual sighting) is removed.

but not a method able to explain musical perception in his relation to sound perception in an individual personal history...

Other than the process, there is nothing objective at all about blind testing, or ABX testing. The actual testing is 100% purely subjective. By removing sighted bias, it ensures a much higher level of subjectivity.

I would offer a suitable response to this question, but I believe some would view my response as not politically correct. Let's just say that many people hold onto illusions virtually their whole life.

no illusion can persist in a cumulative long history,

Unfortunately I believe the only answer you will get to "why" is excuses. The why is obvious. High chance of failure coupled with high cost of failure.

My point was I can not find any posts on the internet where someone could reliably differentiate between a $100 cable and a $1000-$10,000+ one (and that is what this post was originally about). You would think at one of the large audio conventions some high end company with their uber expensive cables would have some superlistener who could show the world there is a difference. Why don’t they do that?

I am sure it is not just me that questions the agenda of someone that actively tries to suppress people learning.

Probably the #1 lesson that an audiophile can learn is that they are susceptible to bias. If and audiophile claims they are not, they are likely lying not only to you, but to themselves.

One doesn’t need to do "tedious" testing processes in ones own home. One just needs a friend that switches cables (or lies and tells you that he did), so you don’t know what you are listening to. No huge study design, no exhaustive testing procedures, and the perfect testing system and environment .. your system, your room. Anyone who tells you there is no value in doing a test this way is lying to you.

cleeds2,585 posts11-25-2019 12:11pm Exactly. And ABX may have particular value in the engineering and development of a component, where the test is most likely to be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols. But properly organizing and conducting such tests is a tricky business. It’s also a tedious and time consuming pursuit that usually doesn’t yield much benefit to the audiophile.

I am really starting to detest it, these guys who think they have superhuman hearing and that they alone , and their close-knit group are so superhuman that they are immune to bias that afflicts pretty much 100% of the population. They post on virtually every audio forum they can, their superhuman hearing and total absence of bias ....

thyname475 posts11-25-2019 1:27pm

It’s beginning to look like it. To the point of me starting to detest is, as only those guys use it, in every audio forum they can find.

This is such a grossly inaccurate statement as to call it bubkiss. While ideally the test would be double blind, that is not always a viable thing to do. There are two biases, subject bias and observation bias. Single blind removes subject bias, which is usually the dominant bias. While double blind is the "gold standard", single bias is still used as it eliminate subject bias, and provides significantly more statistically relevant results. To suggest this is no more valuable than sighted tests shows a gross ignorance w.r.t. this type of testing.

cleeds2,587 posts11-25-2019 12:46pm

One just needs a friend that switches cables (or lies and tells you that he did), so you don’t know what you are listening to. No huge study design, no exhaustive testing procedures, and the perfect testing system and environment .. your system, your room.

What you describe isn’t double-blind and has no control for the tester’s bias. So the results would be essentially useless, and certainly not scientific.

Anyone who tells you there is no value in doing a test this way is lying to you.

There’s no more value to the test you described than there is to the sort of fully sighted tests that you repeatedly assail so passionately.

When you have no idea what you are listening to, then you remove all bias w.r.t. that product you are evaluating. I may not be sure, but some of what you have alluded to as bias in your last post, I think many would call preference. That is much different from removing knowledge of changes and evaluating with nothing but our ears.

I can't think of any other pursuit where a group of people fight so feverishly to maintain their ability to be bias influenced in the outcome. Anyone who thinks they will not be biased by knowing the device being tested/evaluated is, frankly, delusional. I am sorry to be harsh, but no one is immune to it. I don't understand why people keep insisting that they are.

And most people take that same TV set home, complete with the awful settings in the store, set it up in their house, and then leave it in cartoon mode till it eventually dies, never knowing how much better the image could be especially for movies. I have shown many friends how much better their TV can look. I also have friends and acquaintances who wouldn’t think twice about paying a few hundred dollars for a professional calibration on their TVs or projectors, I did a lot of research, and fortunately reviews on televisions include pretty good performance measurements. Then I hit stores (Blueray in hand) and get the remote so I can change/adjust to suitable settings, then I look for characteristics in the images I like / dislike, and I won’t do it in the bright lights of the "field" at a BestBuy. While there is variability from "perfect" in televisions, for the most part, at least now, it is becoming less and less of a subjective evaluation as objective measurements tell a lot more of the story than they ever will with speakers.

... and this is an audiophile forum, not a Sonos forum.

Unfortunately GK doesn't know the difference between a critical review and fan-boy literature and hence posts drivel like the positive-promotion article. You did once again spectacularly prove someone else's point though. You showed delkal was absolutely right.

larryi,

I have been to many such demonstrations, and not once, has the demonstration ever been blind. In fact, what is being demonstrated is clearly indicated, usually accompanied by not so subtle hints at what the sonic differences are. If a blind test is a more significant step up from a sited test, then doing that is one significant step down from even a blind test as you have both the presenter begging the answer, and peer pressure on top.

Hardware store IEC cords are often 18awg, maybe 16awg, while good, but not very expensive shielded cords targeted at instrumentation are $10's of dollars, not hundreds.

Cleeds,
You are a broken record. Prof and I have schooled you on this many times and clearly showed how you are wrong. You keep coming back with the same tired and wrong answers.

1) We are not trying to implement a study or test that applies to every case, i.e. whether JoeBlowCablesInc model 2112 is the worlds best cable.   We are only, repeat Only trying to implement a study that either proves or disproves One persons claim, and under the conditions They make. Therefore, one only needs to repeat the conditions of their claim and use them (or who they designate) to prove or disprove their claim.

2) That you even attempt to argue that a blind test is not far superior to a sighted test removes any credibility you had or have. Your argument is akin to "Well even people who use parachutes sometimes die, so we should never use parachutes". That you repeatedly do this combined with your repeated attempts to refute (1) by describing something completely unrelated drops, at least in my mind, your credibility to 0.


Single blind testing is used regularly where tester bias is deemed to have overall limited impact on the results.  You really need some new material as these tired wrong arguments are stale.

What I am saying is that a blind test is not a sighted test and that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to even claim that.

Anyone who has any experience running tests with subjective results has used single blind testing as well as double blind testing depending on the rigour required for the test and the potential bias of the tester. To say that a single blind test equates to a sited test is an ignorant position not based in facts, or born from experience.

Unfortunately delkal, people are arguing from a position lacking knowledge and I have to wonder what agenda they have?

Sighted Test: The subjective evaluator 100% knows that they are evaluating.

Single Blind Test: (This is a blind test). The subjective evaluator has no direct knowledge of what is being tested. The tester may accidentally or on purpose give clues to the subjective evaluator. This test method is used where the potential for bias is low, or the expectation of bias is low by those viewing the results. This is used day in / day out in scientific testing as most of the time, there is no desire to introduce bias and the results are not life/money critical. For that reason, having your friend administer the test for cables, would be suitable assuming they have no skin in the game for the outcome. Similarly, having a supplier administer it would be a no-no as the potential for bias is too high, and the results would be questioned due to that potential for bias.

Double Blind: Neither the subjective evaluator nor the person administering the test knows what is being tested, therefore there is no way for clues to be passed to the subjective evaluator. The almost gold standard of subjective evaluation.

Triple Blind: In addition to the double blind, all test data is coded so that results cannot be linked to a particular item under test during the data processing and analysis stage.

... and again, if you are only proving or disproving a single narrow claim, you don't need multiple subjects nor a complex protocol.

If being "on high" is making posts that hopefully teach the vast number of people that read forums, but don’t post, that the path to audio nirvana is not standing on your tiptoes, with your head exactly in line with mid-point of the tweeter and midrange, while holding your breath, but only on Tuesdays, and only after you have paid $60/minute for telephone audiophilia, and certainly not before you have consulted with the guy on the corner, the one with the trench-coat, who you must allow to ply you with his wares, and don’t worry, his "trust-me" is worth more than any PhD, and absolutely not before personally going on expedition in preferably an Amazonian rainforest for raw materials to build at least 8 bisymetrical structures,

..... but ..... just like always, it predominantly comes down to good speakers that you like, learning how to and actually treating your room, buying an amplifier that your speakers and you are happy with, and then accessorizing with and appropriate quality source and pre-amp, and if your source is vinyl, prepare to allocate more into that. Anything on top of that is gravy.

It doesn’t matter what wheels and tires, or spark-plug wires, or ECU upgrade you do, that 1979 Chevette it still a Chevette.