2. cables
  3. 175954-41

Power Cable Break In - Such a Change!

I installed a new AudioQuest Dragon Source power cord from my Lumin X1 to my Niagara 7000. The power cord from the wall to the Niagara 7000 is also a Dragon but the High Current version. I bought that cord used.

So, when I first started using the new power cord everything sounded great. However, after a couple of days I started hearing a strident sound. Especially in the upper mid/ treble region. The bass was also constricted. I started blaming the sound change on another piece of equipment that was installed concurrently.

Now, I was under the impression that the Dragon power cord with its DBS system required no break in. But I did inquire about it to AudioQuest who responded that it would still need about 150 hours to break in. It's been close to that now and sure enough yesterday I started hearing the glorious sound that I heard from day one with the power cord only perhaps better.

I must say the difference during break in and now is quite remarkable, I don't remember any other power cord going through this amount of dramatic change.

ozzy

128x128ozzy
jpeters568
25 posts
 

I don’t understand, with the descriptors often used for cables, how we don’t have clear measurements showing the “dramatic changes” users report hearing. I’m not suggesting testing the cable, but rather, testing the sound of cable 1 from the LP, and then contrasting that with the sound of cable 2 measured from the identical location? It’s easy to eliminate the duplicate sounds from both leaving just what has changed. The tighter bass, or the better/ different midrange, or airier highs, etc, should easily come through, right? 
 

So, why hasn’t that been done? Why has no cable manufacture shown this? For that matter, what proper test is there, video, showing people clearly able to identify cable 1 from 2? Especially considering there is “such a drastic difference?” Especially considering one cable can cost 10 bucks vs. 4K and more? 
 

To be clear, I’m not saying measure the cable, but record the sound and eliminate what is the same. Those audible differences can be measured. (Hell, toeing a speaker out on one side can be measured, so why not this?) 

 

holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

It is likely easier, in an objective sense, to measure the signal at teh speaker terminals. Than using the sound itself.

It may be easier in an anechoic chamber as we at least get rid of the comb of the multiple bounces.

 

To be clear, I’m not saying measure the cable, but record the sound and eliminate what is the same. Those audible differences can be measured. (Hell, toeing a speaker out on one side can be measured, so why not this?) 

That is a case in point, where the signal is identical, And can we detune highs and increase the reflections, by decreasing the toe in. 

??

ozzy's avatar
ozzy OP
7,523 posts
 

My ears are my best measurement.

ozzy

rodman99999
6,171 posts
 

@ozzy-

     What did I post that has you confused?

     You are absolutely correct, far as  "My ears are my best measurement."

     It's the naysayers, that want you to disbelieve your own senses, mental faculties and modern (post 1800s) scientific theories.

ozzy's avatar
ozzy OP
7,523 posts
 

rodman99999,

True. Why do I need to measure when I know my system and I can tell an improvement?

ozzy

More to discover