audioquest vs acoustic zen/kimber digital cable

thanks ears...duly noted

Dtebbutt,I have very revealing speakers and two modified dvd/sacd players.
When they were stock players, I could hear a big improvement whith the AZ digital on my Sony 9000es....even whith dd/dts sonics but my Phillips 963sa revealed hardly any difference in digital cables.
I would say that it is the difference in transports in combination whith my very revealing speakers that make the difference in what you hear in different digital ic's.

The bright side is you can get your money back for the mc2.

Ears...had the az mc2 for 3 days(broken in as I bought used)...very little difference ..if anything at the moment perhaps still prefer the aq(bit more lively)...Problem with my system you think?...thought thanks...

thanks very much everyone ..particularly Ears for your experience with the aq ..I am in the process of doing just as you suggest with the az...many thanks

AQ d2 is what i had before a 500.00 Wireworld digital which was an improvement.
I then tried an AZ mc=2 and could not believe how much difference a digital cable could make.
Soundstaging and a detailed yet sweet sound are the mc-2 signature.

Get the AZ, even at list it is a bargain imho

Actually the Acoustic Zen MC2 isn't a pricey cable, you should be able to snag a one meter fellow for about $160. Sorry, I don't have any experience with the AQ digital cable.

Guys thanks for the comparisons between the pricier cables but could anyone comment on the difference btwn the az/kimber and the audioquest dig 2 as Im really curious how big a difference you guys think may exist in the setup described above (ie worth springing the cash for it) thanks again

I agree I used to own the D60 and sold it after getting the MC2, the D60 had dull flat sound compared to the MC2. I also tried the Nite and didn't feel like it was worth the asking price over the MC2. I did slightly prefer it, just not at 3x the price

This crazy guy never got the chance to use the MC2. Did thi crazy guy use the Nite? This crazy guy is too crazy to remember. However, crazy guy remembers he much prefers Cardas Golden Cross over Lightning. And, he remembers Siltech2 is not much far behind the GC. Furthermore, he remembers Bogdan IC is lots better than Siltech2. Lastly, he remembers magnetwire is better than Bogdan. (All used in digital application but in ever changing environment.)

But, yah, 75ohm cables suck. Agree with Dean. Personally, me thinks 75ohm is marketing hype. What does 75ohm mean anyways relatively to 110ohm? Higher resistance? Wish someone can make digital interconnects out of Firewire. This crazy guy back to sleep...

In my system and for my taste I feel the AZ MC2 is far better than the D60.

About a year ago I concluded a test in which I compared the D60, Cardas L15, Mapleshade Clearview double Helix, AZ MC2 and Virtual Dynamics Nite. The D60 sounded the least refined of the bunch and was at times grainy. The D60, Helix and L15 all had compressed dynamics and soundstaging compared to the MC2 and Nite.

To this day I still have the Nite and MC2, and the MC2 is currently in my system. Many people place great importance on obtaining a digital cable that is a true 75 ohm design, but I greatly preferred the 110 ohm MC2 and "non-digital" Nite to some of the other more correct designs.

I guess you just never know, because that crazy guy Viggen found that a Cardas Golden Cross analogue IC worked very well as a digital cable in his system.

With my gear the MC2 and Nite both create a huge soundstage and sound more open than the other cables I tried.