@thyname I understand, I love your audio system it seems you have some expensive cables, you must have some objective reason for buying them. Have a nice day.
AES/EBU cable shootout
As I had promised (please refer to Grimm Mu1 thread and Fee for Audition thread under Digital for more context), I am going to share my experiences using different AES/EBU cables in my system. I am going to gloss over the general question of whether cables, especially digital cables make a difference. I am always careful in choosing my components, and unless something makes a tangible improvement in sound, I will never pay for something. If something makes an improvement, I do evaluate if it’s worth the asking price, and only then do I purchase it. So it’s up to you to decide if something is worth the price that you pay for. Also, please note that, these findings apply to my system in my room and may not translate into the same findings in your system.
Now let’s go into what I heard in my system. I had the following AES/EBU cables. The Mogami cable, Shunyata Omega cable, Nordost Odin 2 cable and the Sablon cable. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain the Jorma design cable as I was unable to reach the cable company either through phone or email. I am not aware of any other dealer who carries it near me.
There is a significant difference between the basic Mogami and the rest of the cables. The difference is easy to discern in the bass. There is simply more texture, dimensionality, and clarity that is missing in bass with the Mogami cable. This is unfortunate as this is the cheapest cable. The rest of the cables are closer to each other. It takes a bit of back-and-forth of listening to discern the differences.
First up was the Shunyata cable. This is an excellent digital cable which is extremely natural sounding. Everything sounds clear with a nice sound stage. The sound stage extends beyond the speakers with a nice depth to it. There is a sense of fullness to the sound, more fleshed out, but in a very natural way. This is the first cable that I had for evaluation (this belongs to my friend). I will be very happy with this cable, if it were my only option. This cable retails for around 4.5 k.
Next step was the Nordost Odin 2 cable. I understand that there is a significant jump in price as this cable retails for over 12 K. The difference between the Shunyata and the Odin 2 cable is more subtle. The primary difference is in the sound stage. The sound extends well beyond the speakers and front to depth soundstage is increased compared to Shunyata. There is also more detail and air at the top end. There is slightly more dynamics with the Odin 2 cable on back-and-forth listening. Please note, these differences are not in your face but subtle. Whether this is worth the price difference is something only you can decide.
The last cable that I had was the Sablon cable. The other cables measured 1.5 m but the Sablon was 1 m. I could not test if the length of cable makes a difference as I did not have the same cable in different lengths. (Please refer to Grimm Mu1 thread for context.)
The Sablon cable brings a lot of nuance to the entire spectrum of sound. The bass is taut and has a lot of finesse. String instruments reveal a good amount of inner detail, whether it’s plucking or bowing. Percussion sounds realistic. It nicely brings out the textures and extremely accurate with regards to tone and timbre. The mid range is extremely clear and well presented, which is one of the strengths of this cable. The top end is clean and extremely accurate. It has an uncanny ability to make the softest sounds really fleshed out and clear. If are a Pink Floyd fan “Hello Colonel, how are you tonight” never sounded this clear, it’s like you are on shrooms.
This is how I would compare the Shunyata, Nordsost and Sablon. The system plays a huge role in laying out the differences. The bass is similar in all the three cables, they go deep, feel taut and have a lot of textures. It’s the midrange and highs that sound different. Nordstrom has a very neutral and sweet presentation that is very inviting. It sizzles in the top end and has superb dynamics. The other two cables cannot touch the Nordost in the highs. The Sablon shines in the midrange. It has one of the most accurate midrange sound and sounds really organic. The nordost is close but Sablon wins the midrange. The Shunyata is close to the other cables but does not sound better. So what did I choose? The sizzling dynamic Nordost or the realistic sounding Sablon?
I always believed that the highs are most important for music to sound alive and imparting the feeling of being there. But Sablon changed my opinion, it’s the midrange that gives the sensation of live music. The Sablon made the music sound more alive than other 2 cables. The difference with Nordost is subtle but definite. The other important thing especially for me was tone and timbre. I play violin and I value tone and timbre (reason for the choice of my speakers) as the most important attribute.The Sablon again wins this. Of course the price is the icing on the cake. So I have decided to buy the Sablon. Of course, in your system and for your ears, the outcome may not be the same. My recommendation is to try before you buy especially considering the price of the these cables.
115 responses Add your response
So just think of this, everyone agrees the signal isn’t going to get any better because of cables. So if the original studio or location sound recording doesn’t use these uber expensive cables of any sort (AC, interconnects, speaker) doesn’t that mean you are wasting your money. Simple premise, where am I wrong? Again I’m not talking about simple cable mistakes like impedance mismatch or errors in gage or cheep cables not using adequate RF protection. The OP was just a case of using a cable that was adequate for his system, just getting up to "0". |
Using your logic then, do cables on the recording side of the equation do any harm? If so, and there are cables on the playback side of the equation that do less harm than others, then wouldn’t they by default do some good?
Believe me, I’m not trying to debate things with experts…its just that so many of us hear absolute, undebateable improvements between various cable brands. The only thing I’m certain of is there are those who are certain I’m imagining things….and they are incorrect. |
@ghasley I hear you, no doubt that good people with great ears hear huge improvements with cables, I have drank the Kool Aid myself just in case I was wrong. Hey I have over 70 speakers in my house and 4 Dolby Atmos systems, 1 professional. its really bad when the salesmen who distribute the cables can't tell you why they sound better. I was starting in the music studios when digital came out, they said the handshake between components was the key it was either a 1 or a 0 and there wouldn't be so much distortion that the numbers would get flipped apposed to analog where there was a variable handshake with an infinite opportunity to make errors. There are fancy ways components look at digital signals now but generally that's still the case and if the cable can pass a 1 or a 0 it doesn't matter haw much the cable costs. When the cable is a BNC the dielectric is important it can change the timing of the 1s and 0s, it turns out the timing/impedance of the information in the cable is the most important aspect of digital cables. The timing of the signal in the cable is always the same if exotic dielectrics are not used. The idea that high frequencies move at a significantly different speed around the outer edge of the cable is silly. As I was saying before the latency in any and every digital circuit makes much more difference than any cable skin effect, this is where the snake oil comes in. No one in professional audio cares about designer fluff fluff cables it simply never happens if there was a significant time difference in the high frequency recording engineers would have to deal with it and we don't. |
Data communication is generally made with two base protocols:
The most of data exchange procedures (like sending to a printer, sharing a disk, moving data, etc) is made using TCP/IP. So, if some data are lost in trasmission, they are transmitted again. TCP/IP is (a lot) slower but safer. The most of audio streams (including telephone VOIP) is made using UDP based protocols, so there is no flow control, no CRC, no retransmission. UDP is much quicker, but less safe.What you get is what arrives to you, which may differ from what is sent, due to: RFI, EMI, magnetic fields, bad cable, bad interfaces, etc. All audio protocols on USB are very close to UDP, exactly as data coming from S/PDIF (from CD player to DAC). They are, in their behaviour, more "analog" in the way they act, than digital (I mean, the content is digital, but the stream of digital bits is trasmitted exactly like is was an analog sound). Hope this helps. |
@tonix: Thank you for this info. This article digs a little deeper: TCP vs UDP. It’s really easy to hear how the gold and silver tuning bullets affect the sound quality on this USB cable and this S/PDIF cable. Since all the parameters are the exact same within each digital cable, there’s more going on than just 1’s & 0’s. As per your explanation, the data is happening in the analog realm. |
When we "hear" a difference, it means we perceive a difference. That may mean we have actually detected a difference in the air pressure modulations reaching our ears, or it may have something to do with what's going on after the sound reaches our ears. Without some kind of blind, controlled testing, or before and after measurements that show a difference known to be audible, we have absolutely no way of knowing which one it is. In either case, it's real. The cables cause the perceived sound quality to change for the OP. That's all we can tell from his report. It may or may not work for you even when listening to the OP's system, and it may have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to detect subtle changes in the soundwaves reaching your ears. |
When you say "we," who is it that you claim to represent? You’re not being scientific if you limit your analysis to differences "known to be audible." |
@svenjosh thank you for sharing your review of various AES cables.
|
@svenjosh I just bought a streamer that uses AES/EBU. thanks for your great review. So 6 months later what cables are you using? I'm an actions-speak-louder-than-words guy. thanks, Jerry |
@carlsbad2 I moved on…. I did not own the Holo May DAC. It belonged to a friend as I mentioned before. I returned it to him. After much research and listening, I bought the playback designs Streamer and DAC. Now I am using PLink which is the best way to connect. I have since sold my Grimm Mu1. Having listened to most top end (price no bar) DAC/streamer combos, I can say without doubt, USB only wins if you listen to DSD 128 and above as AES cannot transfer above DSd 64. So if you do not have the Optical output (this is not the usual digital optical out but a different standard), the next best is AES/EBU. I2S and USB should be last choice. |
The original question is about sound quality differences with AES cables. So persons such as donavabdear and panzrwagn need to get your own cables and do some listening. Nobody here on this forum needs to give "a plausable reason" nor do we need to hear statements like "physics is physics". So get out there and try some cables. Let us know what you hear. My personal experience is the Snake River Audio Boomslang is a clear, unblurred sounding cable, compared to a Wireworld Gold Starlight, which is not quite as clear sounding. The third one is an older (20 years) Straightwire. This one was just slightly duller than the other two. The differences were more of a refinement, and were not dramatic. If I try another brand soon, it will be Jorma or Audience, or Moon Audio Silver Dragon. The price of the Audience is exorbitant, so I will probably pass on it unless a used one comes up. |
