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?
Everyone seems to have a story to tell on this subject, as I am sure you are aware. Over the next 12 hours, if this thread runs true to form, we are going to hear them all over again for the umpteenth time. The responses will include at least one who smugly replies that he or she is not about to spend money on this foolishness, since PCs can't possibly make a difference. Then someone else will point out that if you haven't heard you don't have an opinion. Overall, I am in agreement with your take. One cannot predict when and if a particular PC, regardless of cost or pedigree, will impart an audible difference to a particular component. Trying to get the "best" PC for a particular component in a particular environment, is nearly impossible. One has to know when to say, "Hey, this is probably good enough." Further adding to this complication, Is that adding PCs has an additive effect. If you have some significant RFI/EMI problems, you may not be able to discern a significant difference adding one PC at a time. Its a pretty expensive experiment to replace 6 at a time. As for me, I was a sceptic until a friend leant me a half dozen of his VH audio AirSines. They completely transformed my system, and over the next few months I put about 4K into new and used AirSines. I've added a couple VooDoos and an Audience since then to components that didn't seem to like the AirSines. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have now. So what did the PC's do? Stated simply, they took the last vestiges of some high frequency noise out of the system that was apparently contributing to some listener fatigue. In one case, there was a substantial improvement in dynamics. Well worth the cost.
For me it was the last thing to manipulate. I had attended to vibration, I had dedicated lines, and on a whim, I bought a PS Audio Premiere Power Plant. It made such an improvement I bought a second for my video system. I picked up a used PS Audio power cable and replaced the hospital grade 14 gage power cord. An amazing improvement! So, I replace all the power cords with PS Audio cables. The result was worth it, the background is more quiet and there is a hologram-like vividness to the sound. I expect it to improve as they break in more, they have only a few weeks on them. I think they made more difference than interconnects. I would suggest it is a final step. I might not have been a believer until I experienced it for myself.
My closet looks like a cable factory, several hundred IC's ,SC's and power cables. I've tried most of the usual suspects in mid-price ranges and haven't thrown away or sold one in 30 years, though I have gifted some.
I see now I need to try AirSines , my flavor 2 and 4 will still be in closet though-LOL.
If there is one thing I'm sure about in audio its that that hunk of wire that sounded terrible on one piece of gear will sing on another.
04-04-14: Schubert If there is one thing I'm sure about in audio its that that hunk of wire that sounded terrible on one piece of gear will sing on another.
Well said Schubert, it seems as if we have reached similar viewpoints. I have played with enough cables and cords to realize that it really is all about synergy, the *magic*. I have heard cables/cords that I previously thought were dreadful, sound amazing with certain gear. I have also heard my favorites sound terrible, worse than stock even, when placed on certain equipment. There is just no understanding or predicting the rhyme or reason in this equation. The only true test is in the listening.
When I hear phrases such as "night and day difference" or "completely transformed my system" I start to tune out. Clearly cables can make a noticeable sonic difference, but if it reaches that magnitude, then something is wrong with the rest of your system, or the cable in question.
BTW, magic is applied technology that you don't understand.
Onhwy, The key to understanding my use of the term "transformed" is linked to the virtual absence of fatigue I experienced after replacing the PCs. I did not mean to say that it completely changed the overall sound. Perhaps I could have used a different word, but what I heard was far more than an incremental or marginal improvement. You are of course welcome to tune out.
I started a thread across the street on not getting rid of cables because of Schubert's reason. You just never know when one cable that didn't work before, might be the perfect fit in a different system. Without going into any detail, I will say that I have found a PC that has worked well with both of my Sophia amps-MAC HC.
It's not magic, it is science. If you change the original physical characteristics of any electrons elements (or anything else in the world). It will be different not better because your system now is not representing of the original intent.
Man I'm too cheap to spend even $20 for aftermarket PC unless my stock breaks. There's certainly a difference between Night and Day vs. marginal improvement(if certainly any) The fact is I haven't seen them being used at recording studios where noise floor is more of the important factor than in home audio. I bet them don't even know what is Shaniata or Voortual Doonamics. Did anyone ever ask one self why? Because smart should not and cannot be fooled. Following studio gear standards, you can achieve fantastic sound performance for money spent smart.
"night and day"... on my end, it means simply "pleasure vs. lack thereof" when listening to the same tune.
To Onhwy61: "magic is applied technology that I don't understand". Thank you for your condescending remark my friend.
I'm proposing that magic is good. If there was a formula that actually worked, then the mystery would vanish and audiophilia would... (shock)... die off? No more cable-filled closets, mix and match gear etc...
Two concrete reasons why some power cords might work better than others:
1) EM shielding, which can work both ways. 2) current delivery, which may be beneficial for high power amps in some cases, but probably not all.
Power conditioning often helps as well, but I do not view that as part of a power cords job. Other devices better suited for that if needed.
Night and Day is a strong yet ambiguous term. It really only means there appears to be a discernible difference as opposed to not. It will likely be small on the grand scale of things with power tweaks in most cases, but enough to be significant for those whose ears are very well tuned in, which tends to be the case with most "audiofiles". Beyond that, when a difference is heard, it can be hard to attribute to the known change versus perhaps some other unknown factor, like changes in our own physiology day to day and how that might affect what we hear.
I preach the approach to try tweaks if there is a good value proposition and some clear reason to expect it might work. But go easy, don't flush a lot of money down the drain. Look for value and good customer service/return policies if not satisfied.
"Magic" or even pseudo-science alone is not a good reason to try something.
Hi Mapman, perhaps "free will" can be reason for trying? After all, a commonly accepted practice is the worship a supreme being not (yet) confirmed by science. Swapping power cords seems benign in comparison. For me, perhaps its magic compensates for my inability to adhere to more prevalent non-scientific practices and beliefs.
"Hi Mapman, perhaps "free will" can be reason for trying?"
No doubt.
But in any task, there has to be priorities. This stuff is based on science and technology first so best to cover those bases as best possible first before getting into the greyer areas, where much more uncertainty exists.
Its more a matter of what is practical. Of course one has free will to go about however one chooses. How about throwing darts or eenie meenie miny moe (spelling?). But that's not to say that all will be equally effective. We know that will not be the case.
04-04-14: Jea48 How much better will a $250K 2 channel audio system sound than a $50K system? Five times better? How about twice as good? Or maybe only 5% or 10% better?
My vote would be for the latter choice, 5-10% improvement. Of course I have not compared a $50K system to a $250K system, my answer comes from comparing a $20K system to a $120K system. IMHO, to even be twice as good, the less expensive system must be defective or set up improperly. The law of diminishing returns hits very hard and very early in most things in life, including audio.
Yes Mt, I have several MAC HC's as well as the MAC source ones. What I like about MAC is that it seems to sound at least good, if not great, on about anything. My new to-go to is the Cullen Crossovers at about $200 bucks. Very "blackgound" for any cable much less for that money.
There are factors in $250k system that can be easily mathematically diminished leaving just a coefficient which is probably $10k maximum assuming that $250k system mainly consists of overworked and overpriced products that have low return for the huge investment. No need for magic and no need for science either -- open your school math book and just do ya math!
Yes Beewax, I think we all agree its not magic. Problem is the variables are so many with so many unknowns, that short of a general field theory and a Cray in every house, cut and paste is the only course.
"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"-remains true. Don't give up. If you learned nothing it's only that you didn't have the technical/analytical expertise and/or resources to enable elucidation of the results-at that time. Gauge,conductor(s),lay, insulation,shielding, termination=all essential & vital to performance parameters. To deny this would be to imply there are no serious, intelligent, well meaning cable developers-which is simply untenable. And of course, as in everything there is a "best". In our hobby though "best" is generally a relative term,particularly related to personal sensitivity to hearing and musical nuance/emotional impact, and the sensitivity of the balance of the equipment in the system being experimented with. Try some other cords; it's fun.
Try caps in your tuner will make one PC on your pre sound different than other and so your entire system . To know all the variables would take a NASA flight to Jupiter scale effort.And probally still fail.
i have always used aftermarket PC's until I just recently put all my stock cords in and realized I was either choking my system or just changing it. I have tried maybe a dozen and own a few.
I have always been somewhat of a cable junkie with IC's and speaker cables but the PC phenomenon just does not interest me. Way too many options and the dozen or so I have tried are not satisfying long term in my system.
Obviously it works for many, maybe because I am 100% vinyl I don't need the alteration who knows, I know when I had a digi rig I always used aftermarket PC's. Well at least I am saving myself a few bucks. I can blow it on other things, like cartridges!
Pops, Interesting. Some of the best tweaks I have made involve PC's and Audio Magic Pulse Gens, which are supposed to cancel out EMI/RFI. I must be located in an area particularly subject to that problem. In the absence of strong RFI/EMI fields, I could see how a stock PC might be preferred. After all, that is presumably the PC used when the equipment was designed. I't could be that since your system is not suffering from digititis, your tolerance threshold for RFI/EMI is higher. Who knows? I tend to tune out ; ) the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" crowd. As I and others have stated, it"s not possible to predict a priori the effect, if any, particular PC will have. It can certainly be a frustrating and expensive process.
I started testing many powercables in 2002. I had and still have a lot of fun testing them. That time I worked in a speciality shop in sound and vision. I wanted people to understand how big the influence was of a powercable. So I started blind tests. I Always used a very expensive powercable and our most sold one of about 100 dollar. Most of the time I used sources, but also I did it with amps. For example a source of 2000 euro with a powercable of 2500 euro. I compared it with a source of 5000 euro with a powercable of 100 euro. It was a lot easier to get a better end result with the use of an expensive powercable. People Always were very surprised. This is how you can people make aware how big the influence is. That is why you need to keep things as simple as possible!
When the Valhalla powercord came out I could live for about one year only by selling these powercables. It was so much fun to sell them. These days there are more exeptional stunning powercables.
for all: Nay and Yes sayers. It still doesn't make sense to play with these differences for extra money. It would partially make sense if aftermarket PC is in $50 range or bellow.
Expensive powercable make sence when you get a better endresult with a 2000 dollar costing poweramp or source with a 3000 dollar costing powercable. Compared to a source or amp of 5000 dollar with a 100 dollar costing powercable.
When you do this in blind tests people will understand the value of a powercable. I do this for about 12 years now.
and that's all because we have that mentality that for $3000 component the aftermarket PC should be $300 and for $30,000 component the aftermarket PC should be $3k. at the same time both of them could have same material and bulk with only differences in purpose of a particular financial layer. i do that for 32 years if not more, but every time i had money for some improvements and tweaks, they were all spent on media. since i'm a media dealer, i certainly have no time to AB and all I do is spin spin spin all the time while I'm home.
I guess I have another question - it was on my mind for awhile and I don't seem to find a good threat already addressing it... maybe now it is more clear in my mind.
How do you tell which aspect of the system falls short at one given moment (without going through the straight A/B)? Does a shortcoming in PC (blur, boomy bass, etc..) sound different to you than a shortcoming in IC, SC, room etc...? I feel that they should sound differently to the trained, young ear (mine are probably not at their peak anymore in either respect) - and would be happy to learn how to make the right judgement call (or at least a better one).
04-07-14: Cbozdog How do you tell which aspect of the system falls short at one given moment (without going through the straight A/B)? Does a shortcoming in PC (blur, boomy bass, etc..) sound different to you than a shortcoming in IC, SC, room etc...?
I would say that a shortcoming can be difficult to address if you are unfamiliar with the system. That is why it is critical to be familiar with your own system, and only make one change at a time. Change a power cord, and then listen for a few days, are things better, the same, or worse?
The biggest mistake you can make is changing too many things at one time, though most of us have done that. Buy a new amp, some cables and some cords, then insert them all into the system and the sound gets worse....then you have no idea what is doing what and who's making the sound worse. One change at a time helps to alleviate the guessing game.
Dog- Great question! I think the best any of us can do is make an educated guess about the weak link in a system. My approach is to read the forums carefully for a long time-- year is not uncommon. I look for components that get very strong review from the media and AG members, in particular, those members I have come to know and trust. I also look for clues regarding system synergy. What this does is increase the likelihood that a purchase will result in a system improvement.
As far as PC's, the improvements I have noticed have been with respect to dynamics and cleaning up the upper frequencies. Relief from listener fatigue and sweetening up strings.
Over the last 10 years I've only made 2 purchases that disappointed me. But I am getting to the point where it is probably going to become more difficult to find things that are truly better, not just different.
Jmcgrogan2, if I understand correctly, basically you feel that "no, prior to engaging in swaps, etc.. one cannot tell which component, cable, etc.. is mostly responsible for what shortcoming of the overall sound".
Swap one item at the time, live with it for awhile - this is the only way.
04-07-14: Cbozdog Jmcgrogan2, if I understand correctly, basically you feel that "no, prior to engaging in swaps, etc.. one cannot tell which component, cable, etc.. is mostly responsible for what shortcoming of the overall sound".
I would agree with that. If I walk into a strange room and the sound is good or bad, how would I know which components, cable or cord to credit or blame for the sound?
The logical path is to proceed changing one component at a time and note what we think of the change. However, we do not always proceed in a logical manner in this hobby. ;^)
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 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.
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, 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".
On hyway, I do understand the point you are making, and it has some merit. I think our disagreement is more a matter of language than substance.
I don't know anyone who went from a from a 0.5K mini to a $30K system in a single upgrade. Permit me a bit more hyperbole here, but that like asking what kind of language would have been appropriate for Orville and Wilbur to have gone from Kitty Hawk to Apollo 11 in a day. There is no point in reserving superlatives for scenarios outside of human experience.
More common is a situation where one slowly builds a system, then plateaus at a fairly high level, struggling to achieve anything further. Then, one finds something that really does make a difference. This difference could be described as trivial, or even imperceptible, to 99.9% of the population. But in our circles, one's experience of that difference can be substantial. The two observers have a decidedly different frame of reference.
Without denying that cables, IC's, and PC can, and do, make a difference, although PC's differences are very subtle and I think are really most audible in highly resolving systems, when it comes to 'tuning' a system I'd rather spend my disposable income on tubes where the differences are more easily discerned and leaves a lot more time for listening to music. :-)
Yesterday I visited a client of mine. We did a few different tests. I also had 2 Purist Audio Limited editions with me. For his Wadia 7si and Spectral poweramp it made a huge improvement. We are not talking about a few %, a very big improvement. We also did compare his MIT interconnect with the brand new Audioquest Wild Blue Yonder. This is a big improvement over MIT as well. But.....the improvement of the Purist limited edition was even bigger.
Since this date I have not tested any powercable brand which can make this level in improvement. The level in black is stunning. Also instruments and voices become more intimate. MIT would wish they could achieve this. I owned there best powercables. Those are inferior to Purist Audio powercables. Also the decay in the right and left side behind the speakers is a lot bigger. The level in 3 dimensional image between MIT and Purist Audio is big as well.
I Always say: voices become more round. This means there is more space around them and they are less flat.
instruments and voices are so much better separated than MIT powercables can ever create.
Another example; percussion, you hear the difference in height with a Purist Audio powercable.
Purist Audio is superior in what I call individual focus of instruments and voices compared to MIT.
In one year of time I beat all MIT cables with ease at different clients. Purist Audio and Audioquest makes it very easy to win from many other brands. I say; I love'm!
It is a personal experience. However, if we call "zero" the level where there is some loud music coming out of the speakers and "hundred" the live, unamplified symphony orchestra or chamber group then we have a lot of dynamic range to assign percentages.
However, I'm not that subtle myself. I can only distinguish binary (e.g "night and day") between listening for the umpteenth time to a program that I already know by heart (night), and hearing it again in a better way (well... "day"). Yes, after many enjoyable additional listens post-upgrade, the previous "day" might slowly turn into dusk... and that's when the itch needs scratching again.
A bit further on the dynamic ranges... for some of us perhaps "zero" is the current level of the system - whatever that is - and "hundred" would be the live unamplified performance etc..
In one previous post (Brownsfan), going from 98.3% to 99.2% might seem like a petty sub-1% improvement, but if his 98.3% is his "zero" then the improvement is a whooping 52% on the way to perfection.
... and conversely, if my system is at 60% (my "zero"), Brownsfan improvement of 0.9% (a petty 2.3% in my frame of reference) would make no financial sense to me whatsoever. I'd have to take my system to 80% to perceive the same audible benefit he's getting from his upgrade.
(taking Brownsfan's example as an example, of course).
Dog, I think you catch my drift. however, diminishing returns applies, and each has to determine for himself where to draw the line. I think the way this thread has turned shows that it is devilishly hard to quantify improvements once a system attains a pretty high level of performance.
I can't tell Onhwy he is wrong in pointing out that the differences one might expect from a PC swap is something short of "transformational." In the first place, I didn't not hear what he didn't hear, and he didn't hear what I heard. Even if we had heard or not heard what the other did or didn't hear, we might very well value the difference heard differently.
Im swapping out PCs, I have at least achieved the same level of improvement, maybe more, that I have achieved by tube rolling. Maybe I've evaluated the wrong tubes or someone else hasn't found the PC that makes things work for them with their equipment. Who can say with certainty?
One person's "0.2%" increase in performance is another person's "night and day". I never understood how people could quantify differences anyway.
I either think it sounds better or worse. Then there are varying degrees of better or worse. How can anyone say this power cord offers a 3.14159265359% better performance over that power cord???
You Judge sound for more different parts. You need to understand all these parts. In 16 years of time I have done thousends of test with cables, sources, amps, speakers, conditioners etc.
I can hear all these parts in a few seconds with my own music. Most people can only focus on a few of the parts to Judge for.
So what I do for these people is to explain what the difference is. I do one part at a time. So it becomes a lot more easier also for those who have less experience.
When you do it right, it is even for people who have not a lot of knowledge very clear. You only need a normal working hearing.
When people say: I don't hear the difference. At a show I don't think it is that good. Often it is not that good in real.
My experience is that when all parts are there in a set it is convincing for every person. When a part is missing. At shows many people make mistakes ( they don't know what the f.. they are doing0) or what I said parts are missing.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
