Cable Reviews

These are all at such different levels. How did you go about this test? Just changing a cable wouldn't cause any significant volume difference.

Lots keep Clip 3 at its original volume.
Clip 1 needs to be turned Down 3.1dB
Clip 2 needs to be turned UP 2.6 dB
Clip 4 needs to be turned UP 1.9 dB

Then, there are balance differences. Clips 1, 2, and 3 are 2dB too have in the left channel. Clip 4 is 1dB too heavy in the left channel.

BUT WAIT... THERE'S EVEN MORE!!!

Clips 3 & 4 have the channels reversed.

Anyone taking this listening challenge and not noting these HUGE inconsistencies may not have the listening skills needed to identify such minute differences that a few centimeters of cable *might* make.

I find it deadly ironic someone who reviews audio devices for a living be so incapable of making a proper, consistent listening test.

I forgot to mention the azimuth on your cartridge alignment is off. The left channel (or right depending on the clip) is off several samples.I only checked it out after hearing phase issues with the center image, so it's noticeable. fixing that would probably make more of an improvement than changing cables sound essentially the same (unless you know the price tags).

File 1, to me, sounds the most different than the others. Also it seems that the L and R are different On file one and 2 the cymbal at the beginning are coming from left of center and the guitar that sounds like it is using some kind of chorus effect is in the right channel. That is opposite for files 3 and 4.

File 1 sounds sibilant and a bit harsh to me.

File 2 is smoooooth but sounds sounds dull in comparison following 1 and is noticeably quieter.

File 3 has a beautiful shimmer to the cymbals without any sibilance to the vocals

File 4 is similar to 3 but seems to have a deeper soundstage.

I think I prefer 3 overall.

That's the order I'd pick of best to worst. Thank you for doing this Michael. I'm interested in hearing the answers on what was what. I have feeling I've just found yet another area in my set-up that needs a complete overhaul.

That's the order I'd pick of best to worst. Thank you for doing this Michael. I'm interested in hearing the answers on what was what. I have feeling I've just found yet another area in my set-up that needs a complete overhaul.

The first file made it feel like the voice was within my head, which is a sort of immersion I love. The second file felt much more relaxed and had a sound that I would prefer if I had music on in the background. The third file seemed to sound the most natural to me, which for some is the goal but for me not always. The fourth one sounded a little too relaxed for my liking and actually bored me.

The order from favourite to least favourite would be 1-3-2-4.

Blimey Michael; sorry your efforts here seem to have generated so much criticism. Its all got a bit complex! That is why I have a Rega P10!! It just works.

As my system is not set up for playing downloaded files (records and CD only) I did a really basic test and just listened through my iMac speakers, which should be far less revealing than a quality system. Even so I could hear clear differences for what it's worth.

Order of preference best to worst....1-3-4-2.

1 had really open mids and highs and nice tonal variation over piano and voice. Percussion was crisp and open.

2 sounded dull and compressed in the uppers.

Both 3 and 4 were nice but 4 sounded a bit too safe and a little lifeless.

1 was a clear winner for me.

didn't like 2 at all and 1 vocally not pleasing, 4 okay only
So, 3, 4, 1, 2 my order of favorites which may not be in order of cost.

This sparked my curiosity so I tried listening again, this time through my iPhone 8 Plus and a pair of decent B&W PX headphones. Here reliant on the DAC in the phone and the far better quality of the "speakers."

If nothing else it showed how much the components in the chain influence the sound along with the cables. So much down to personal preference too.

This time none sounded so much better or worse than under the cruder listening setup.

What I can say is that nothing sounded $4000 better or worse!

My previous favourite (1) still sounded airy and lively but now rather too much so and seemed to get a little brash in the uppers, as if the recording had clipped here and there. This clearly sounded most different to any of the others and might wake up a dull-sounding component.

2 sounded better than before but still rather dull.

3 sounded rich and full and with no obvious flaws.

4 sounded nice but still a bit too safe.

This time it's probably 3-1(with reservations)-4-2.

Hi there... listened on an iBasso DX90 with Meze 99 Classics headphones.
File 1 : a very intimate, warm sound (possibly a tad too bright on some of the vocals)
File 2 : somewhat flat, less vibrant with a weak low-end
File 3 : similar to file 1, but I find it slightly less rich sounding
File 4: similar to file 1, with a slightly fuller sound

So, I'd say file 2 and 4 are distinctively inferior BUT I'd also say that they are inferior when directly compared to files 1 and 3. Taken in isolation, they sound acceptable to me.

Extremely difficult to hear differences between 1 and 3. Between 2 and 4, 4 sounds better

It is very fair the comment about the volume. How can a cable increase/reduce the volume?

2 (my number one) - 4 - 3 - 1

I think that is clear that paying 5700$ for a cable that we can’t agree on what is the file is a none sense. I would increase a bit the budget to have a nicer connections and maybe spend 200$ but clearly, the race for the cables is over for me. A well build mid range cable does not differ from the most expensive one.

2 (my number one) - 4 - 3 - 1

2 has my preferred sound. By comparison, I find it to sound most coherent and clear, with a nice balance of detail and presence in highs, mids and bass. The most "musical"?

3 is also nice - vocal more forward than 2; full and "present" sound. Nice top end.

1 noticeably louder in level to me. vocal came across as very forward, almost "shouty" in comparison.

4 sounded distant, soft and dull. Not my preference.

I noticed the initial cymbal roll to be more in the right channel on 4 and 3, and more in the left channel on 2 and 1.

Listened via Audirvana-->Schiit Multibit Jotunheim-->Sennheiser HD 6XX (stock cable/balanced plug).

Thanks for the enjoyable distraction. Have to say this is one of my favorite records (even though not my typical "genre" of music).

Cheers,

Thank you Mr. Fremer for your efforts!
I prefer to listen file 3 and the worse for me is file 2, which I suppose is with the cheapest cable.

Ok. So after listening several times..... The big stand out is #1 is obviously louder than the others. Number 4 seems to have the most detail, for example the subtle guitar scratches seem to be better defined in 4. The bass seems maybe fuller also in 4. With the obvious exception of the volume of file 1, the differences are very subtle however and they might sound different but i cant say one is “better” necessarily. At least the way I’m listening to it. That is currently with a dragonfly red and Focal Elear headphones. You might give me clues as to what else i might listen for. Thanks

Ok. Did some more listening. Off the subject i tried playing through my iphone instead of ipad air 2 andthe iphone is horrible. It sounded mono, no separation of channels at all as far as i could tell. This is still using camera adapter to dragonfly red to focal Elears. Not sure why that is. Tried it through tidal on iphone and the same thing. Now using ipad with same setup. Much better. I played same somg listening to tidal through roon on my ipad (the mqa version as dragonfly red decodes mqa) and sound was almost identical to file 4, which sounds good to me. File 3 is also very similar sounding. Its hard for me to compare file 2 because the L and R are reversed on 2 (as well as 1). The L R are correct on files 3 and 4 because they are the same as tidal’s version. So off the subject but the mqa tidal sounds great.

As others have noted, the test files are very different in volume level with RMS average over 1 minute of almost 6dB variation!
LOUD 1 3 4 2 SOFT

This in itself obviously will affect subjective preferences. And I see this is Khoral's order above.

Furthermore, track 1 is loud enough to be clipping samples which some might find objectionable. And the channel balance is clearly different with that opening cymbal - 1&2 similar compared to 3&4.

The worst sample for me is #3. Most amount of audible hum, probably most reflective of cable differences. Doesn't explain the change in amplitude or channel balance issues.

As a test of playback and recording technique consistency, maybe record 4 samples with no hardware change - just lifting and dropping the tonearm, same start/stop on the computer side. Do you see such volume/channel differences? If so, maybe something's wrong with the set-up...

#3 is my choice.

My last comment did not appear. Here are some further observations kind of off topic:

1. I listened again using iPhone instead of iPad and the iphone does not has any separation between the channels for some reason, sounds mono.
2. I listened to same track from tidal through roon and MQA version sounds very similar to file 3 and 4. 16 bit version sounds good to but MQA sounds more cohesive maybe.

As far as which file sounds best to me, files 3 and 4 are very similar hard to pick which is best, file 1 is louder maybe not as enjoyable, file 2 sounds good also, but hard to compare to 3 and 4 due to channels reversed.

I can't pick a best.

Just to clarify I listened to the iPhone and iPad using the same setup which is with camera adapter to dragonfly red with focal elear headphones. Also did further listening with iMac USB out to oppo 105 straight to amp.

I haven't read the comments up to this point to avoid allowing them to bias my impressions. I'd say 1 allows the voice in particular and the occasional strong piano note too much prominence. I'd say 2 gives the voice a bit more clarity compared to 1. I'd say 3 and 4 are best. The voice and piano both sound more more real. Perhaps 4 is the best of all. I didn't find the percussion that convincing in any of them.

To me file one was definitely the loudest but also the most detailed and inviting. In my opinion 2 was the worst, sounding restricted and muffled. 3&4 were so close I could not tell. I should state that these were listened through my phone with crappy earbuds so take it for what its worth. I would like to put it on my 2 channel system.

To my ears 3, 1,4,2. With 4 sounding constrained and 2 like it’s buried under a pillow.

1.) Strong bass, but muffled vocal. Least FAV.
2.) Vocal clearer, but that was due to a lack of low end 2nd least fav
3.) Good bass and vocal. My fav.
4.) Also good overall and close to No 3 in quality.

I'm not sure what vocal mic Norah uses, but her vocals are not as clear as the instruments. MIc need a different mic preamp as well.

This was a good test for me. I just installed an IFI Purifier 3 into my Focusrite Scarlett 2nd gen 24192 usb box. Monitors were JBL 305P MK 2, self powered monitors. Maybe not Class A, but still revealing enough for this test. I do like the IFI Purifier 3 and will buy a 2nd for my other computer, a Mac Mini, with a Yamaha MG10XU for audio there. It is also 24192 capable.

Devolve. This is just another one!

Paul

in order to make a better evaluation I fixed “channels swapped” and “different loudness” problems.

here are the links:

file 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LMWdTgz3Iy884vsKcYUl-wFF0Zd2KHJI/view?u...

file 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wt2yk6W_pQn6QpnH776FcqgNXPj7O7VC/view?u...

file 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pD2UBqfr9FhVu9de0jhy5CiGa8K_zjCw/view?u...

file 4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TLSSWjyAxerxkRRic6pxtmcLW3enTMcx/view?u...

Do all or any of the phono cables under consideration have separate ground leads? If so, where were the leads connected? As confounding as it may seem, my own experience is that each of the phono cables I've tried have different grounding preferences (only grounded at the turntable, only grounded at the preamp, grounded at both, not grounded at all, egad!)--at least in my setup. And, of course, the grounding affects the sound. So I thought I'd ask.

Ok so I listened to mtemur’s files which are better matched for loudness and channels. On file 1 the vocal is still overbearing compared to 3 and 4. I think 4 seems best to my ears. But hard to tell that much of a difference. Both 3 or 4 sounds great. Definitely not worth a $5000 difference between any of the 4 of them.

Title self-explanatory

On my studio monitors (Yamaha HS-8's), number two seemed the least heavy and a little leaner compared to the other three. I did adjust volume to match. Number three sounded best to me. Number one sounded "smeary" Number 4 not too far from #3.

file 2 sounds two dimensional and congested to me. I guess:
-file 2 is the cheap cable.
-file 4 is "straight through" cable
-file 1 and 3 are other costly cables.

From good too bad

Hopefully my text will be visible this time ....

Thanks Michael for taking the time to do this. It's a shame people are so critical.

3 seems best overall to me. 1 is too 'hot' for my taste, and the vocals and piano notes seem harsh, although it is very dynamic. 2 is dull as anything like listening with a pillow over my ears.

Unrelated, but when someone asks "how can cables increase the volume..." I am reminded of the super entertaining Audioquest fiasco form 2016

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5540

I can hear a difference, but I suspect both the quantity (amount) and quality of the difference is very dependent on my DAC, preamp, amp and speakers (including the cables for those). I am hesitant to rank the files in terms of "worse to best"; I can state that I "like" the sound of one more than the other. But this is also dependent on my own ears (hearing acuity and frequency response) and what I personally prefer, especially with regard to instrumental timbres and voices. With regard to the latter, I have never heard the singer "live" so I cannot know what her voices actually sounds like. Therefore, again, my selection is a personal preference for what I would LIKE her voice to sound.
For me, on my system, I prefer #3. The cymbal is more realistic, there is a resonance to the bass notes and they are not blurred, the piano notes are full, but separated somewhat, the voice is more forward or distinct which may also be associated with a better soundstage. That said, at times the treble of the piano is slightly harsh. In contrast, find #1 least desirable with a more booming bass that is "blurry", the piano notes are less articulate, the instruments and voice less separated and distinct (worse soundstage) and the symbols softer and less "brassy" or realistic. #4 has a realistic cymbal. The overall sound is "thinner" and there is a slight harshness (some call brittleness) to the piano especially in treble. The bass is reasonably articulate and there is good separation of the voice from the instruments, but not as good as #3. #2 I found close to #1, softer in volume, slightly less blurry or blossoming of the bass, cymbals seem distant. Just because a cable cost more does not make it "better" for any particular system (set of components). I do believe different cables produce or allow a different sound which a person may like more than another.

The question was which is not like the others. Answer for me: File 2.

As far as rating, to me from best to worst: 1, 3, 4, 2.

And finally and ironically enough, as I was researching some DAC/ADC equipment just yesterday, I came across a very negative comments from 2015 of our buddy Mike and his use of expensive cables, similar to Hats Domino above, but worse. Really? Dumping unwarranted and unsubstantiated criticism (like Hats) in an unrelated piece on a person who isn't even commenting. Yikes. I am not interested in reading those kind of comments, but being the professional Mike is, he leaves them there unfiltered.

Thanks for all the good editorials and reviews over the years.

Didn't listen to the original files, only the revised files. 1 stands out as being lesser than 2, 3 and 4. If I had to pick a favorite its probably 3.

Within a second of first hearing it on headphones connected to my phone, I thought, "This sounds really bad." I heard the whole clip, but my impression did not improve. It reminded me of the reaction I had some time ago when I replaced my cheap AudioQuest interconnect cable with even cheaper ones from Monster Cable, and had forgotten I had done that. I think I paid something like $40 for the Monster Cable interconnects, and probably $100 for the AudioQuest cables.

I think #1 was the most pleasant sounding, but #2 seemed to have more detail, so maybe that's the best one. In any case, I liked #2 better than #4.

I believe 1 is nicely balanced with nice shimmer on the cymbals and good weight on the piano, as well as nice esses in her voice, it is, however, more pronounced and forward. Next, is 4 which is nicely balanced with everything being just right, but it is second to 1. Next is Nr. 3, very nice but a little less of everything will say this is the straight-through connection. Last is Nr. 2, distant blurry and not great at tall.

Keep in mind, that poor LP was played at least 4 times in a very short period of time.

The "24 Hours Rest Between Plays Society" should arrive soon to opine this egregious breach of LP playback etiquette.

We will need to see if there is a trend for identifying favorites in relation to the order in which they were recorded from the LP.

Or, maybe Mike made the recordings at 24 hour intervals in order to avoid the dread "played it again too soon" phenomenon.

I have found out over the years using Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio since version 7/8? and now up to 12, 13, & 14. I have found that I need to normalize each channel independently if you want the best results. Without that you still might find one channel out of balance. If that happens I will play the track and then raise the lower one in the "process" by the general amount it is under volume of the other. I leave -1db of head room generally.

Sound Forge 12 is my fav as it has at the bottom a spectral diplay with a vertor display showing stereo or mono, and finally on the bottom right an EQ display out to 20khz or more for high rez files.

I have asked Magix who now owns the Sony Software to put these visualization back into 14, but 14 does have an actual oscilloscope if you could use that when recording or mastering. I have also asked them to include DSD the next go around as it now goes up to 32/384 now and can do 5.1 if you need it. I don't being a stereo guy.

A great deal for $59. Most of what I do is 2496. I can't hear better with 24/192 with my old ears.

In order of preference.

First of all let me say that of the first examples, listening via my iPad over Bluetooth to Sony’s best noise cancelling headphones my preference was for #4. It seemed to have the best balance and dynamics while maintaining air and space with the least sibilance. For any doubters regarding the effects of wires, good or bad, in a resolving audio system I can only say that several months ago I had a pair balanced interconnects between my preamp and amplifier. They retail for $10K. I wasn’t prepared for the increased resolution these expensive cables made. I didn’t buy them.but I certainly wanted them. They made as much difference in the system as a very expensive electronics purchase might have made. Notice my use of the word “might” because I’m not certain I could have achieved as much improvement even spending $15-$20K.

Worst sounding for me was File1. The dynamics wasn't there.

So as not to bury the lead, best-to-worst = 3-1-4-2

I used my Oppo 203 as the DAC, sending in pure analog the rest of the way to my Magico S3 speakers. Perhaps not a pedigreed DAC, but mine is an analog purposed rig with digital as an afterthought. Nonetheless, the differences were quite audible to me. Saying which difference is better than the other becomes subjective, of course.

First, the worst: #2 sounded like a wet blanket was thrown over the stage ... transients emerging from a viscous fluid rather than air ... sound stage narrow and shallow; it was a pleasant, polite sound, but bereft of energy .. .suitable for elevators and dentist offices

The other three were less severe in their differentiation, but fell into place quickly and stayed through a dozen listens.

Third place goes to #4. I would have enjoyed #4 without reservation ... if I hadn't heard #1 & #3. #4 had not glaring fault for me, but suffered from an overall weight that kept the music from dancing freely through the air

#1 was very good with the piano and the guitar, but Nora's voice seemed too far forward and too wide, as if she had a very wide mouth, which she does not if her photographs are to be taken for face value; she also sounded at moments as if singing inside a large cardboard box

#3 was the best, albeit imperfect ... and therein lie the dastardly deeds of subjectivity; #3 revealed a deep resonance to her voice that made her feel more real, more passionate .. at the expense of flirting with exaggeration at moments ... but overall to my liking; the piano and guitar were beautifully crisp ... I think this is called microdynamics; but the deal clincher for me was the extraordinary sound stage, extending both wider and deep than with any of the others to a instantly noticeable extent.

Now ... Mr. Fremer ... in addition to naming Cable #1, Cable #2, ... do we get to know which pressing of this album we have been listening to? Is it the venerable Classic Records or the newest Analogue Productions?

When did you post the new files?

Why one cable goes directly to the RCA plugs?

Clips 1/2 and 2/3 are channel reversed. Where can I donwload the correct files? Thanks

i downloaded the revised tracks and they are all facing the same direction now

:)

Most to Least
#2
#4
#1
#3

Keyed in on voice mostly.

He obviously has never heard of Telarc recordings, Mannheim Steamroller recordings, Sheffield Lab recordings, etc.

#1 stood out as the least favorite of the batch: harsh, too loud, unpleasant. The other three were all within shouting distance of each other with me favoring #2 slightly. I used Stax headphones with Geek Out DAC.

I didn't think it was worth trying to rank them. I just thought #3 was so much better than the others. I'm hoping that when I pile through all the comments I will at some point learn what they all are. Interestingly enough, for my test, I also added to the pile a DSD rip from the SACD, and I thought Cable #3 bested that one too.

I think the idea of trying to normalize for volume is misguided. You say you have now just swapped cables and recorded the result, which is absolutely correct. Anybody doing the same thing (swapping cables) at home would have the same perceived loudness problem anyway, so it is much more representative.

Bottom line is, you have shown very clearly that cables make a difference. Based on my listening tests with your 4 tracks it is a big enough difference with cable #3 that (in my system at least) even the more hardened skeptic ought to immediately hear it. The other three cables, not so much.

Downloaded the files last night; listened today. Two files are still channel reversed, so it's hard to do this test. My head is spinning trying to deal with the reversed soundstage. File #3 is the clear outlier on sound: softer, a little rolled off. I have to assume that a cable that lowers the volume and rolls off the frequency extremes is doing something wrong.

It puts one on their toes to ignore it and just concentrate on the sound. Not that hard to do.

As the files were presented by my system, I preferred file 3, because the energy of the initial cymbal roll feels like an introduction and is just right, perfect. All the files sound better than the cd, so, I have put this Analogue Productions release in my buy soon list. And my guess for the $15 cable is file 2, but what do I know?

Interesting reading - thanks for this Mikey.

I have done my comparison using my iMac's speakers - and maybe tonight I will try using AirPlay to my "hi-fi".

Anyway my results using my iMac are:

#1 - clear favourite - it is the only cable where I felt I could hear into the room
#2 - least favourite and a good reminder that with the wrong cable you don't get nearly as much satifaction from listening
#3 is in 3rd place - good but some elements jarred and I thought it missed the x factor
#4 is 2nd place - good, and quite similar to 3, but better.

I'll leave the musically correct terms to others.

...that wouldn't upload my post from my iPhone

Mikey can you please record all my LP's on your turnatble and send me the files please :)

Will Mr Fremmer ever post the corresponding number to cable?

Listening from iPad via Airplay to my amp and Idea’s, my order of presence is still 1, 4, 3, 2. To me 2 sounds relatively one dimensional, whereas 1 has more nuanced information, fine detail and space. 3 & 4 overlap and have their good and not so good points but the musical performance doesn’t hang together as well imo.

What is interesting to me is that I see some have a strong preference for 2. This makes me question my judgement. But we are all different - as watching on TV the differing views on CV19 lockdown attest - well you have to be happy with your own opinion - thank you Art Dudley, RIP.

3 The more crankable and "analog" out of the lot
4 Open, detailed and spacious sound
1 Similar to 4 but less airy
2 Falls clearly behind the other 3

3, 4, 1, 2 for me.
I’d be very happy with 4 or 1 but 3 just seemed special.
What a lovely voice with real feeling.

I just saw this discussion about a week ago. I downloaded File 1 through File 4 on May 21, 2020. Are these the latest corrected files?

After reading some and skimming most of the comments, I looked at the waveform plots on Audacity. It does appear that Files 1 and 2 are channel reversed relative to Files 3 and 4. In addition, File 3 has polarity reversal in both channels, compared to the other three files. I don't know how a cable would reverse polarity, unless it was intentionally manufactured that way. All I did was import each file into Audacity in succession from 1 to 4 and visually compare the waveforms.

I also did some brief listening to all four files and could hear the channel reversals, but didn't spend a lot of time listening, so will not post my impressions of the sound.

Can someone confirm this channel reversal, and polarity reversal?

I downloaded on 6-5-20 the 'corrected' files from mtemur from his post of 5-10-20, and analyzed these on Audacity. These appear to be all the same L and R channels, i.e. no channel reversals from file to file.

There also is no polarity reversal (as well as no channel reversal) on the third file from mtemur, while there still is on Fremer's File 3. When I get some time, I'll listen to these mtemur files.

4,1,3,2 are my choices in what I liked in the files. With 4 and 1 sounding really similar but 3 wasn't bad at all and 2 didn't sound as clear as the others.

I am late to this thread but here is a tangential issue. I wanted to try a Synergistic Research phono cable to see if improves over my longstanding Holland MG2 and which on the SR site says 'free demo'. But I live in Australia so SR sends request to USA Cable.co. Cable get back to me with "5% non-refundable deposit + carriage charges' = USA$500+ for the demo experience. I write to SR who respond "what can we do?" - I respond "YOU Cannot Be Serious". Obviously blacks and mortar shops are few these days but sellers like Boenicke, even Magico used private people in the past to offer this service - I know I bought speakers this way. You go, you listen, you buy or don't buy. If you buy the seller orders from company. People interested in US$9000 phono cables are picky - do these compare to Stage 3 or Odin, Vaillha etc etc and they want to demo. Efforts need to be expended to talk about the consumer model that can allow these manufacturers to continue to exist by broadening their market - they seem not to 'get it'!!! Yes I can afford to 'waste' US$500 for what will take 5 minutes comparison but only a fool would do that!