2. cables
  3. 150350-126

Audioquest Dragon Powercord vs Hurricane

I don't want to get into a debate about if powercords and/or cables sound different or not. I just want to talk about the differences between the Audioquest Dragon and Audioquest Hurricane powercords in my system, based on my ears and preferences. My system consists of a Jeff Rowland 625 S2 amplifier, Jeff Rowland Corus preamp, Chord Dave DAC, Antipodes DS GT music server, Monitor Audio PL500 ii speakers, JL Audio F112 v2,  Clarus Crimson speaker cables, Wireworld Platinum series 8 XLRs, and all Audioquest Hurricane power cords.
I have two Dragon powercords for a home audition. I put one on my DAC and the other on my preamp. My initial thought is the Dragon added a lot of detail. I usually listen with the volume set at 60, but had to reduce it to 58 with the Dragon inserted. After letting the music play for awhile, I did some critical listening for 90 minutes or so. I'm pretty certain that I will keep all Hurricanes and not purchase any Dragon powercords. It isn't because I think the Hurricane is better. I submit they are different and I always say cables are system dependent. In my system the Hurricane is a more balanced cable, where the Dragon is forward to my ears and it's a cable that really highlights details in a way that I don't like. E.g. when I listened to a blues track by KEB MO, with the Dragons the guitar was very forward and dominate, his voice was out of balance and the bass wasn't as full. Returning to the Hurricanes provided excellent balance with detail and fuller bass. Things may change over the next couple of days, but I don't usually change from my initial thoughts. There are no absolutes in audio and careful component matching is more important than how much a component cost.  
ricred1
ricred1 OP
2,058 posts
 
ron17,

I think Audiogon is great when we talk about our experiences without dictating to other what they must agree with regarding preferences. I find it fascinating that cables can has such an impact on the tonality of a system. I agree that price doesn't guarantee anything. 
viber6
2,454 posts
 
ricred1,
You simply asked me whether I thought clarity/detail is an "absolute" or whether it is subjective, like "your clarity is my sterile/bright."  That was a good question.  Forget audio systems for a moment.  I gave examples of the spoken word to explain that clarity/detail is an "absolute", just as it is correct to say that "9" is objectively, absolutely greater than "8."  In all aspects of life, clarity is a desirable attribute.  But it appears that the clarity concept of "high fidelity" is not important to you, only that you strive for sound that you like.  I too, strive for sound that I like, but it happens to correspond to the search for high fidelity.  In all honesty, and without dictating to you or anyone else, I have a reasonable facsimile of high fidelity, although it is not perfect fidelity.
ricred1 OP
2,058 posts
 
Viber6,
So, I'm man enough to apologize. You're correct I did ask the question, so sorry. 

Here's my definition of high fidelity-the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original.
Because we don't know what the original sounds like and the equipment they use on most recordings, if not all recordings adds distortion, it's my opinion that "high fidelity" in a home setting is not possible. For arguments sake, lets say high fidelity is possible. Will everyone prefer that type of sound? Home audio for most is about building a system to enjoy...for some that's clarity with detail and for others it's a warm sound. That's why they make so many different speakers, amplifiers, etc. 
viber6
2,454 posts
 
ricred1,
I agree on most of what you just said.  I would say that PERFECT fidelity is not possible, but HIGH fidelity is.  Certainly most recordings add distortion which we don't exactly know went into the processing, but you can ignore the distortions and listen to the essence of the music.  Even with purist recordings that don't add distortion, we don't know the acoustics and the electronics used.  But general experience with live unamplified music in various settings teaches us the general qualities of live sound.  If you strive for clarity, you can appreciate more of the nuances which are the real essence of the music you enjoy.  It's like fully enjoying your friends/loved ones while ignoring their deficiencies.  Another possibility is that some people at classical concerts like to sit further back where the sound is warmer than close up.  They can design their systems to produce high fidelity to what they hear from that distant seat, which is warm.  If that is what they want, then high fidelity matches warmth.  However, most recordings are made with close microphones and supplemental ones for ambience.  High fidelity reproduction of these recordings should have a close and detailed perspective, by definition.
ricred1 OP
2,058 posts
 
viber6,
I can only speak for myself about what I want out of my system. In my current system every recording sounds different. Some recordings sound flat, some bright, some very open and detailed. I listen to mostly contemporary Jazz(Paul Brown, Boney James, Larry Carlton, Kirk Whalum). I've had speakers that some consider detailed/clean and I couldn't listen to them for long periods of time. Now I have a system that provides detail and allows me to listen without getting a headache.   
More to discover