Power Cable Break In - Such a Change!

@ozzy 
I put together two new power cords about a week ago using Furutech FP-S55N with FI-50 NCF and FP-S032N with FI-28(R). Going thru almost exactly the same nasty break in as you are experiencing with Audioquest. 
The minute I plugged the new power cord in the sound was incredible. Best I ever heard my system sound. Then 2 days in harsh, muffled, artificial, glare, boomy. Then there was no bass…gone…just harsh mids and highs. 
I stopped listening and just gave it a 3 days with the components on 24/7.
Thankfully about 110-120hrs in it’s coming around.  The delicate highs, clarity in mids and textured lively deep bass. I’m expecting it to settle around 200hr mark but continue to improve up to around 600hrs based on what I’m reading. 
Break in is real and this was worse than anything I have ever heard during the break in phase. 

audphile1,

I have also built many power cables. The best I made was using pure 10 gauge solid .9999 silver wire with the Furutech NCF fittings. I used oversized Teflon tubing and braided them similar to the Dragons. They sound very good, but alas not as good as the Dragons.

ozzy

wesheadly,

The Dragons are broken in at the factory, but they still will require many hours within one’s system to fully break in or develop. They also have bias circuitry that is not activated until you pull the tab activating the battery when installing them.

I do get it about the pricing, I have been fortunate in that I purchase items mostly used and can sell them if I want for almost what I paid for them. So, not too bad in the long hall.

I have noticed that as my system has improved, it is easier to tell the improvements.

ozzy

rodman99999,

You have me confused...

ozzy

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?) 

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. 

??

My ears are my best measurement.

ozzy

@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.

rodman99999,

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

ozzy

My ears are my best measurement.

The point was that they are not a measurement. It is called a subjective experience.

The questions was:

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? 

…

Don’t try to equate flowery words, trustworthy ears, marketing jargon with people wanting to understand if something is happening, and then what it is.
The opening sentance started out with “I don’t understand …”, so I guess your point was that the person cannot understand with having the golden ears?

holmz,

Would you prefer equipment that measures well or sounds better? 

ozzy

Both would be ideal.

I could picture a power cord possibly helping with the power amp, but I doubt it would do anything on the preamp or phono stages I have.

But I think it is better to sell the power amp, take the money I would piss away on a cable, and just go and get a better power amp.

We should be able to make a list of what amp sound better with a power cable and which do not.
Maybe we should do that? And then people can buy the gear that generally doesn’t benefit from them?

holmz

This is what I posted previously.

"To me the biggest improvements in my system have been with the AC power. That is the usage of dedicated lines, quality outlets, wire, grounding, power conditioning and the power cables. Get the foundation right and the audio equipment can perform at its best."

ozzy

@jpeters568

There variables measured like inductance and resistance are gross characteristics. There are at least a dozen or more of variables involved and the impact is dependent on the source component and the receiving component, which then impact the output. All of high end audio is like this… as well as the design every single sub component influences the output.

Watch the video earlier in this string… he explains some of the reasons for differences. It should answer a lot of your questions.

Anyway fifty years ago when I got into this pursuit I learned that: 1) cables, interconnects, and power cords can make a huge difference, 2) there are not a list of known variables that you can look at to determine how they will souns, and listening in your own system is the only way to know.

By the way I was trained and worked as a scientist for a decade and I very quickly go… ok, science does not help here (it does for making them… but I am sure it is still largely trial and error with materials),

@ozzy yeah but… I was responding to @jpeters568 question of why can/t it be measured and shown.
I provided the simplest way that I would approach it.

You are seeming to suggest that the question of @jpeters568 cannot be answered with measurements and can only be done with ears. Did I capture that correctly?

Most of my front end gear (old and new) use outboard power supplies that convert the AC.to DC. So I would doubt that there is a effect on the DC, but it could be measured I suppose.
(The power amp is where I would expect an issue could exist.)

@rodman99999 Nice list !!

I think Hamlet shares our view ... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in our/your philosophy"

Oz(zy)

Thanks for all the posts thus far. Just a little of history. I have owned several iterations of PS Audio power plants. I also have owned Acoustic Revive, Shunyata, Purist, Synergistic etc. The AudioQuest Niagara 7000 has been the most impressive of all of them.

Ahh...Forgive me Ozzy for asking a question you had answered already earlier. For some reason I missed it? Due to old(er) age I suspect?!

@ghdprentice

I didn't ask for anyone to measure the cable inductance, impedance, or resistance, I asked for a mic to be setup in the listening position, record cable 1, vs. cable 2 with all other things being equal. Maybe those who believe cables are awesome are right and the way cables have been measured are indeed all wrong. But for the differences described by using high end/ costly cables, by users who say you have to hear to believe, they claim there is a clear, audible difference in sound, which, should be easy to measure with this test. Null the recorded similarities, and present the differences between the cables from the same listening position, music, etc. 

And with all due respect, when you suggest science can't do something, after being trained in the filed, WTF do you believe in when science doesn't have an answer,  witchcraft? 

This is a SUPER simple test. Null the same things, present what is different. Don't measure the cable per se, but rather, the FR at a listening postion, all things being equal. Yet, not a single cable manufacture does it. Scientifically speaking, should I just believe the guy who claims a 4k cable sounds so much better, and it can't be measured, or, believe in other scientific, peer reviewed studies, about confirmation bias and why the person who spent 4k on a cable may believe it's better than just a $10 one? 

@mrskeptic

Several years ago I talked with an actual metallurgist and specifically asked him about cryogenic treatment of wires changing the crystal structure and when he stopped laughing, he said *if* that happens, the crystals will go back to their normal structure when they return to room temperature.

Am I missing something here? I thought and was taught not only at Atlanta Area Technical but at The Delta Airlines Technology Operations Facility in Atlanta, GA to treat metal parts cryogenically is changing the crystal structure and exactly what happens in cryogenic treatments of metals. I have seen first hand cryogenic treating of metals in a facility that is almost 10 times the size of a football field and is more akin to an Aeronautics plant than anything I’ve ever seen.

Thermal processing for metals is nothing new. Heat treating has been used for centuries to alter metals’ characteristics. Although the simplest heat treatment comprises just three steps—bringing the metal to a specified temperature, holding the temperature for a set length of time, and bringing it back to room temperature, in a precise manner under controlled conditions—these steps can be applied in literally countless combinations. The quenching step alone has innumerable variables, including the quenchant, such as oil, water, brine, aqueous polymers, air, nitrogen, or helium; the type of agitation—none, mechanically agitated, or ultrasonically agitated; and quenchant temperature. Circa 2013 Cryogenic processing—dispelling the myths, mysteries

Here are just some of the uses of cryogenic treatments in manufacturing:

• Aerospace & Defense: communication, optical housings, weapons platforms, guidance systems, landing systems, aircraft parts.
• Automotive: brake rotors, transmissions, clutches, brake parts, rods, crank shafts, camshafts axles, bearings, ring and pinion, heads, valve trains, differentials, springs, nuts, bolts, washers.
• Cutting tools: cutters, knives, blades, drill bits, end mills, turning or milling^[3] inserts. Cryogenic treatments of cutting tools can be classified as Deep Cryogenic Treatments (around -196 °C) or Shallow Cryogenic Treatments (around -80 °C).
• Forming tools: roll form dies, progressive dies, stamping dies.
• Mechanical industry: pumps, motors, nuts, bolts, washers.
• Medical: tooling, scalpels.
• Motorsports and Fleet Vehicles: See Automotive for brake rotors and other automotive components.
• Musical: Vacuum tubes, Audio cables, brass instruments, guitar strings^[4] and fret wire, piano wire, amplifiers, magnetic pickups,^[5] cables, connectors.

I don’t know where your metallurgist got his education but he is/was dead wrong? In fact metallurgy is one of the oldest sciences known to man. Understand cryogenic processing or treatment is a vast scientific improvement/study far and above over simple metallurgy techniques that were used in the past. Metallurgy is the precursor of cryogenic treatments/processing.

@mrskeptic

Also, in more than 40 years of reading about stereo stuff, I’ve never heard of something sounding worse after the supposed break-in. Why is that?

Although I do agree with this above statement.

And I also agree with our own beloved @geoffkait who stated:

’Let me explain. Electronic (Electrical) engineers don’t get any courses in Materials Science, Engineering Science and Strength of Materials as do Aerospace Engineers and he obviously has zero experience in cryogenics whereas I have 20 years of experience.’

Love the guy.

@jpeters568 -

     As ANYONE, that has the slightest inkling of how the process works, knows:  "...when science doesn't have an *ANSWER," it comes up with a, "THEORY".

              *ie: To that other 96% of this universe, Science can't explain

     BUT: the process ALWAYS starts with an OBSERVATION made by someone with an interest in what's going on (in this case: differences in an acoustic/musical presentation).

     For a lot of us, that enjoy music and the acoustic in which it was recorded, reproduced as realistically as currently possible: HOW that works, with whatever component chosen (be it a new room treatment, preamp, amp, speaker, cable, stand, fuse, etc), isn't as important as THAT it works, to THEIR EARS.

     But then: I imagine I'm not alone in researching how electricity acts (or: MIGHT act), when encountering various circuit configurations, dielectrics and metals (according to post 1800s THEORIES and MEASUREMENTS that are easily available, to the honest fact seeker, as I've mentioned), before choosing with which component to listen/experience/experiment.  

     Gotta wonder: how many music lovers, that own a marginally expensive system, have ever studied Acoustics and can readily quote the Sabine equation (doesn't get more basic), or: ever bothered to ACTUALLY measure a room, themselves, before treating it?.

                                PERHAPS: that should be outlawed?

And with all due respect, when you suggest science can't do something, after being trained in the filed, WTF do you believe in when science doesn't have an answer,  witchcraft?

I'm happy your ears adjusted to the sound. Errr..... I mean the cable got broken in.

Very Interesting Topic. I have 2 Dragon HC, (1 meter) my Outlets Are Furutech NFC Rhodium. My amp is Gryphon Mephisto Stereo, which require 2 power cables. I'm not digging these Cables with the Mephisto. Perhaps because the Mephisto is the most transparent, amp I have ever heard? I don't know? Is it the Rhodium with the pure silver? Been using Furutech with their top of the line connectors, with S032N wire. I'm used to the silky-ness the Furutech provide. PM me if anyone needs more info on the cables...

jakesnak,

What is it about the Dragons sound that you don’t like?

ozzy

@rodman99999 - no. anyone with any "inkling" of the scientific process knows - you form a hypothesis, not a theory. Either you don't know the difference, which, may be very possible. Or worse, in your condescending message towards me, you use inexact language. Which, makes you inarticulate at best or just stupid at worst. . Which one are you? I assume, perhaps without merit, that you do know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, right?

And btw. No, It is not always an observation to kick off the process. It can also be a question. And thank god again you were wrong about it or else we would never have known the theory of relativity. 

And 96%?!?! Really? If you want to quote something so specific, about something we don't know of, seriously, How smart are you? Because, we just don't know, what we don't know (As don Rumsfeld once put it.) 

But to the subject at hand, okay, I accept the hypothesis that you can't measure cables traditionally to find a difference in sound. Then, observation should be used next. And the observed things are that the bass is tighter, or the midrange more full, or the highs are more airy. Those are things that can be measured. Why have we not done that? Null tests can prove those differences, So why haven't the cable manufactures themselves performed these experiments? Or published these results? 

But to the subject at hand, okay, I accept the hypothesis that you can't measure cables traditionally to find a difference in sound. Then, observation should be used next. And the observed things are that the bass is tighter, or the midrange more full, or the highs are more airy. Those are things that can be measured. Why have we not done that? Null tests can prove those differences, So why haven't the cable manufactures themselves performed these experiments? Or published these results? 

There is pretty much one answer that is obvious.
If I was making these things and found, possibly the worst amp, and it made a difference, then I would be using that to show the effect.

Would you prefer equipment that measures well or sounds better? 

In the case of the power cable, I would like to see it test as being different.

We can also argue whether more distortion sound better, but in general I would strive for measuring well.

Maybe with the amplifier one can say, “Ok the front end is high fidelity and is neutral with low distortion,” and then consciously say… “I am going to now spice it up with a tube amp.”

If every piece of gear is spicing things up, and morning away from neutral fidelity, then it gets to be a recipe of chance, that could be hard to repeat.

In any case, as mentioned previously, we have no actual proof that anything is happening from the manufacturers… which seems odd.

I can take a preamp with a Stereophile published graph showing a minimum of 0.03 % THD+N and agonise whether going to a different one with 0.02% THD+N graph is worth the cost… but I have no way to understand what might happen with a power cable. It is just described with words.

As ANYONE, that has the slightest inkling of how the process works, knows:  "...when science doesn't have an *ANSWER," it comes up with a, "THEORY".

              *ie: To that other 96% of this universe, Science can't explain

I heard a quote the other day that described science as mostly “coming up with questions.”  Then various hypothesis are investigated in order to describe what is happening and correlate the observations with reality. As the hypothesis are evolved, then we understand how things work, and can replicate/repeat these findings.

There may be a hypothesis as to why a cable might produce a change, but it needs to be repeated and measured to get to the point where the manufacturers can claim that they work, how they work, and when they may not work.

The hypothesis of crystal structure changes seems reasonable, but it would be more compelling with before and after microscope images showing that the crystals in fact changed.

It is not only the crystal structure that is changing with current. The diode effect has influence on the directivity of the cord, the saturation of the diëlektricum acts as an capacitor on the time domain and varies after burn-in. And then there are easier measurable things like the EMIRFI contribution/blocking attributes of the cord (on the surrounding cords for example) next to L,C,R measurements.

@jpeters568 -

         The goal of the Scientific Method: to, "ANSWER" WHY observed phenomena occur.

     The steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a QUESTION about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a, "hypothesis", 4) EXPERIMENTING the, "HYPOTHESIS", and 5) observing the results  6)ANALYZING the data from the experiment and drawing CONCLUSIONS*, and 7) communicating the RESULTS to others.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps

     INVARIABLY: When one of the Sciences runs into a phenomena, for which it HASN'T YET figured out a method of TESTING (experimenting) the HYPOTHESIS, or: CAN'T YET understand (analyze) whatever data might been found during EXPERIMENTATION, there can be no categorical, "ANSWER*" to the question, "WHY?", and a, "THEORY" is proposed.

                  *English 101: without an answer, there can be no conclusion

     As an example: I've repeatedly mentioned that Science has no ANSWER or CONCLUSION as to what exactly makes up 96% of this universe, BUT: since Einstein's cosmological constant problem, Physicists/Scientists have been THEORIZING and spending BILLIONS, in search of an ANSWER as to WHAT'S UP?

 ie:  https://www.livescience.com/strange-theories-about-the-universe.html

     "And 96%?!?! Really? If you want to quote something so specific, about something we don’t know of, seriously, How smart are you?"

                                AS IF I made the numbers up?

      Get a clue! (fifty or sixty implied punctuations and interrobangs)

https://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/science/space/24essa.html

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy#:~

this ears adjusting to the sound can get ridiculous...I know I don't sit and critically listen for a few hundred hours while burning-in new stuff...I just check in periodically, so no "ear adjustment" here, and probably little elsewhere...

And, if you know your audio system as I do, I can tell the change.

ozzy

@ozzy  Your earlier comment on getting foundational aspects in place is spot on. Proper wire, outlets, etc. Problem is when you change up gear the cable aspect can change. For me with Gryphon Mephisto/Pandora 2 cables each! The Dragon High Current had a brittle delivery. I don't even know if brittle is the right word? It sounded unnatural. The Furutech have a fluidity to them, a silky delivery without muddling detail. They have a very life like sound. I'm not saying the AQ are bad cables. I had Classe' CAM 600's, I think the AQ High Current with those amps would be a much better application. Maybe if the outlets were copper it would have been different? As noted I have Rhodium. I ordered a Taiko Extreme and am now attempting to figure out how I want to approach the power cable on that. I have actually heard of people using AQ High Current with Taiko. If I still have them I will give it a try Taiko. Not expecting great results. Typically copper melds well with Taiko. I'm installing a dedicated Furutech GTX-D Gold for Taiko, so I am thinking all copper cable with that outlet. Thinking DPS-4.1 alpha, with all copper connectors. 

BTW, I agree with Ozzy. If you do as much listening as I do you can pick up changes in sonic delivery. Some systems are way more revealing than others. Difference in sound is not the same as changes in sonic detail. Why would anyone  invests this much time, money, and effort not attempt to achieve a proper sounding system?

I’m getting off my own topic a little, but I would add that room treatment is also important in getting the best out of your equipment.

I have 4 very large ASC tubes in the corners along with 7 Stillpoint Aperture ll’s throughout.

ozzy

Ozzy I didn't even realize you started the topic! Room treatment is also a good thing. Very difficult in my room. It's a log home with 6" thick logs. Its huge 30 X 26 X 26H, with an open loft. Head room is a must, hence the Mephisto. Seldom do I get out of medium bias. All this wood works well. The ceiling with exposed beams is 6" x1.5 thick. With 6" of foam sheets, furred out with plywood and shingles. I think that's why it sounds so good.  John

It is not only the crystal structure that is changing with current. The diode effect has influence on the directivity of the cord, the saturation of the diëlektricum acts as an capacitor on the time domain and varies after burn-in. And then there are easier measurable things like the EMIRFI contribution/blocking attributes of the cord (on the surrounding cords for example) next to L,C,R measurements.

I can get the point of abiding this is true, for say, a speaker cable. But what sorts of time domain (smearing?) is in a 60Hz power cable that makes it into the power amp?

This thread reads is like a group therapy session. And it is getting apparent that out crowd has not experienced the effect.

https://youtu.be/BzPa2GpQCs8

holmz,

I’m not sure I or anyone else can say anything that will change your mind. That’s ok enjoy what you have!

high-amp,

Oh no, not that JA!

ozzy

jakesnak,

Wow, your home sounds great! My wife has always wanted a log cabin home. So, I bought a barn...but that’s another story. 

ozzy

holmz,

I’m not sure I or anyone else can say anything that will change your mind. That’s ok enjoy what you have!

While I am skeptical, I would be very interested if it did work, and also the theory of how.

But I think that you are correct in that what people say will not likely move the skeptics.
It would likely take a measurement showing some difference… or some A/B deal where at least one person can identify whether it has the power cable or not, say 10 times of of 12.

@ozzy 
None the less, I’m happy it is working for you sir.

homlz,

Perhaps there is no current viable device that will measure our sonic preference? I mean all we have is Ohms law. If you're hearing and your system is transparent enough, most people will be able to detect the differences. Why such a denier? Try it.

I know what I hear and prefer.

ozzy

X2 Ozzy.

@holmz-

      Bear with me a minute, in my folly, far as a possibility on why a power cord might make a difference.

      Based on some of the theories on how electricity works, simplified:

      The conductor acts as a waveguide for the signal/voltage.

      Within the conductor: when excited by an AC current, electrons oscillate, generating photons/electromagnetic waves that travel, always from the source, to the load.

       Keep in mind: all signals (ie: music, AC) are sinusoidal  waves

       Those photons/electromagnetic waves travel through and outside the dielectric, which (according to it's permittivity/Poynting vectors) will have various effects on those waves.    One of the most obvious, is the dielectric's effect on the speed of the signal.

      The better designers of printed circuit boards, even take the above into account, when choosing materials for their products.

       I posted a link on the first page, that included data on the manufacture of semiconductor chips and what was observed when materials were cryo'd, during process.     Short version: better contact/lowered resistance between layers.

          Under the scanning microscope: much smoother surfaces observed.

       I would hope, by now, it's a given that various cable constructions, twists, braids, etc, can make for a cleaner transmission of signals (ie: Litz, etc).            

        Just seems to me (a hypothesis): given the above (some theories and some things established/measured/proven), it's not a big stretch to believe a power cord, built of the best conductor (Ohno CC silver), wrapped in a very low dielectric coefficient dielectric (ie: Teflon), cryo'd for the smoothest transfer of those photons/magnetic waves and twisted in some crazy way, might not smooth out some of preturbations/noise, from the crap an AC waveform had to go through, back to it's generator.  (run-on, much?)

       I haven't tested this, actually comparing two circuits, but: it wouldn't surprise me, if a power supply that used a choke, would be less affected by a better power cord, as the former can eliminate a lot of the high freq garbage, etc, that's either created by, or makes it through all the big converting/filtering stuff, before.

       Never thought about PCs before the good stuff hit the market, but: the Physics/QED made sense.

            I tried 'em, I like 'em and the science makes my head feel better.

                              Don't care WHAT it does to anyone else's!

     OH, and: it takes some time for the dielectric to form, take a charge, polarize, or however one chooses to define the process, when a dielectric is subjected to electromagnetic waves, which affects the Poynting vectors, measurably/predictably.

              The lower the material’s dielectric constant: the longer that takes.

                                               PC burn-in?    Maybe?

Perhaps there is no current viable device that will measure our sonic preference? I mean all we have is Ohms law. If you're hearing and your system is transparent enough, most people will be able to detect the differences. Why such a denier? Try it.

I might.

 

OH, and: it takes some time for the dielectric to form, take a charge, polarize, or however one chooses to define the process, when a dielectric is subjected to electromagnetic waves, which affects the Poynting vectors, measurably/predictably.

              The lower the material’s dielectric constant: the longer that takes.

At 60Hz, that is a huge time.

I can abide that speaker cable playing the 1kHz or 10-20 kHz can do all that, but 60Hz is very low.  

Maybe being on 50Hz makes it less of a problem?

@wesheadley 

...you have just entered the land of confirmation bias ...

Which inevitably leads to the sea of cognitive dissonance.

Is there any other hobby that makes more wildly unprovable claims than this one?

Yes. Electric guitars and tonewood. That myth has been busted many times, but is still going strong.

I’m not going to say there is no such thing as "burn in" but there is no physics that says a copper wire will change with low levels of current flowing through it for 300 hours. Hot things, such as tubes, will certainly change. Anything that glows is undergoing metalurgical changes that hopefully will mostly stabilize, hopefully for a long period of time.

But if you were a seller and had a buyer thinking about returning an item, any item, even a rock or a nail that he just bought, if you could convince him that it will get better if he sits with it for 300 hours, that will greatly reduce the risk that he will return it.

And "audiophiles" have pretty much posted all over the internet that they will believe the "burn in" theory for any and all components.

Make your own decisions but I will suggest that you don’t believe eveything you see on the internet. Make sure you read the last line:

Jerry

Ozzy,

any system changes headed your way this year?  You run a very interesting combination of Cables/Cords my Audiophile friend.

Happy Listening!

just found a forgotten Audience PowerChord E in cable box...replaced stock cord from Quad Vena ll Integrated, and immediate improvement...Audience hasn't been used in many months, wonder if it will get even better with use...