2. cables
  3. 1396584081

the magic of power cords

We need a bit of magic in our lives. It might be the reason why audiophilia has such traction among people from all walks of life.

The neophyte's skepticism is likely proportional to the level of technical training - the more you think you know, the stronger the conviction that, for example, the power cable business is a sham: "electrons are electrons" and "if the house cabling is bad, why would the last 3 feet matter?". The stronger the conviction, the more humbling the experience of hearing the power cord magic in action.

A few years back a Sophia Electric amp came into my hands with what looked like a generic power cord. The few non-generic cords I tried (Audioquest AC15, Audio Magic XSteam, Shunyata Research Diamondback) made a significant difference for the worse. The thin, black, generic-looking original cable allowed for a clarity and definition of voice and instruments that got totally washed out with the aftermarket cables. A night-and-day difference. No doubt - the power cord made a huge difference - but not in the expected direction. The Audioquest AC15 was particularly bad.

For awhile, I kept trying them around on all incoming equipment (be it DACs, preamps or amps). The AC15 sounded so bad every time that after awhile I wasn't even trying it out.

Many years and few amps later - something seemed not quite right with the presentation of my KAV-300i: slightly dull upper bass. Power cord: Zu Birth. Finally (after multiple interconnects and few speaker cable swaps) I pull out the power cord stash (same as above). This time around the AC15 was the great surprise: it allowed for clarity and macro dynamics well above the others.

What do I learn? Nothing, really. When is shielding important? When is gauge? How about the conductor or the insulation? How come there isn't one "best" design?

The magic continues.
cbozdog
cbozdog OP
63 posts
 
Oh - just a note regarding "night and day"...

People who use these words to describe changes in the sound of their system might have experienced it on both ends: a system that delivers "transistor radio" music vs one that is conveying the nuanced differences between instruments, sound decays, atmosphere, etc..

Perhaps people who cannot relate did not experience both: either their system is always perfect (perfect AC, top gear, perfect room isolation) or they never got to the next step?

I'm just saying.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,590 posts
 
I n practice, I make a simple judgement when listening to whatever. It either sounds good or bad. The difference between the two might be called night and day, but in fact could be relatively minor. I either enjoy what I am hearing or not.

On that track, since I listen to my main hifi setup the most, I set the bar highest there. IT has to sound good all the time, allowing for variations/deficiencies recording to recording. So there is a lot more that goes into that than other cases.

I also listen to a second system, headphones, table radios, etc. in my house. Not to mention car stereo. Each of these fits the bill although to a less "perfect" extent when I listen.

Its all a matter of what a person finds satisfying to meet the need case by case.

It can't all sound perfect all the time. Expecxting that is the certain path to audiophile hell.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,272 posts
 
Perhaps people who use terms such as "night and day" to describe sonic differences in audiophile equipment are using hyperbole. I don't take their words literally, but I wonder why they are being so dramatic in describing what are essentially subtle sonic differences.
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
Onhyway, this is an area where diminishing returns is thrown out the window. One can get 90% for 1K, 95% for 3K, but that last 5% can cost you 100K.

If you have been stuck at 98.3% for 10 years, a change that gets you to 99.2% is for that person a substantial improvement, perhaps transformational.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,272 posts
 
Brownsfan, I completely agree with your first paragraph. Maximizing performance can be very expensive. But if you're going to describe a .5% increase in performance as transformational, then what language is left to describe going from a system built around a good $500 mini-monitor to a full range, well chosen $30,000 system? If someone spent $100,000 for upgrades I can understand the emotional need to overstate the improved sound quality. Saying it's tranformational, night and day, blows aways, I could never go back, etc. sounds better than "it's a very small change, but musically satisfying and overall worthwhile".
More to discover