USB cable comparisons

[reverendo]

Today I took the time to compare my ASI Liveline Power Cord to the Mapleshade Double Helix MK2 Power Cord with Plus Upgrade. After a lot of back and forth the main differences became rather clear:

• the Liveline has a more spacious sound, with more depth
  
• the Liveline has a much cleaner midrange which is easier to notice on good vocal recordings
  
• the Liveline has has a more detailed upper midrange and lower HF
  
• the Double Helix + has a more textured LF and timbres are better, especially the larger string instruments. therefore makes big orchestras sound better and more real
  
• 
  

The differences weren't night-and-day, except for the midrange. This means that the Double Helix Plus is a very good power cord for a very good price, but it wasn't better than my Liveline, though it does cost 3 to 4 times it's price.

For the sake of experimentation I exchanged my Rega Power Cord on my Cantata for the Mapleshade and the results were very positive. I got the detailed and more textured and timbre-accurate LF without losing the midrange clarity and spaciousness. OTOH, although I always thought that the Rega was a giant killer (a colleague sold his 3 Valhalla Power Cords and inserted the Rega in their place preferring their perfomance to the prior) the MapleShade Double Helix Plus still costs 75% more.

The DH+ will probably go back to them.

Sorry for the off-topic.

Best regards

André

[reverendo]

just ordered the USB Cable from Purist (the cheaper one). let's see if it's as good as a few friends have been telling me

will post first impressions and later on will probably compare to the Clearlink and the Axis, if it's still here

[reverendo]

Juan,

if you look at the first post of this thread you'll see that I have.

best regards

André

[reverendo]

Purist arrived yesterday. had a listen to it today. first impressions are that the Clearlink Plus is clearer and more spacious and that the Purist has more body and is darker. will leave the Purist in the system and will compare it after aprox. 150 hours again

best regards

André

[reverendo]

Do all one can to prevent reflections/mirror imaging (S/PDIF = square waves).

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Hi David,

normally I associate the name David and Switzerland with a former Pro-Audio, now High-end audio brand.

thanks for the input and welcome aboard

best regards

André

[reverendo]

Starting to compare usb cables . I have a transparent 90$ cable . Today I bought a 30$ audioquest forest ...and it took about two seconds to hear that the forest was awful, digitally harsh. So I'd say the USB cable matters, and I am going to be trying different ones .

audiojim,

not defending the Forest, but you might want to give the cable some burn-in time... it does make a difference

please, post your findings

best regards

André

[reverendo]

I believe that tomorrow I will have reached more or less the 200 hour mark with the Purist. I hope that I'll be able to do some comparing

[reverendo]

just did a quite long comparison between the Mapleshade Clearlink Plus USB cable and the Purist USB Cable. here are my final thoughts.

Clearlink Plus

• clearer, cleaner and more transparent sound
  
• slightly better definition of leading edge transients ("attack")
  
• more spacious, especially in regard to reverb in the HFs and, therefore, ambience
  
• instruments have less body, as if sounds were recorded close to the instrument rather than on the instrument itself. intruments and voices sound less solid and have less weight than the Purist
  
• is more detailed
  

 

Purist USB

• seems to have a more resolved mid-range
  
• has a more solid sound, especially in the mid-range and sounds more real in regard to voices and acoustic instruments
  
• slightly better positioning on sound stage, probably due to a more solid and opaque reproduction of instruments and voices
  
• slighty less accurate on leading transient edges, but better timbre in the mid-range
  
• darker and less spacious than the Clearlink. ambience cues are less clear and detailed
  
• 
  

 

Summing it up: the lasting impression is that the Purist reproduces fundamentals frequencies (the core notes) better, resulting in more body and density, with better timbre in the mid-range. the Clearlink, OTOH, resproduces the harmonics better, which makes the sound lighter and clearer, but with less body. Funny enough LFs are quite the same, but it just might be due to my speakers which have a fantastic bass for a bookshelf, still don't go down to the lower notes like the best floorstanders do.

I'm quite torn between both, but am pending towards the Clearlink, since I feel that greater transparency won't hinder me in getting more body further down the chain, but that the Purist might take away those very clear HFs for good. Still, it's a tough choice, since the added body and solidity make the Purist very appealling. I do believe that much of this is very system dependent, so always take that into account.

[reverendo]

the Purist is going back.

will probably get the SR, but am going back to original idea of getting the Platinum and Diamond for comparisons.

[reverendo]

thanks Oscar,

would you mind just talking a little bit about the differences? liked your signature, btw

 

on another note: Diamond and Platinum coming from the library for tests

[reverendo]

just bought the Aubisque filter from Ultra-Fi. I hope it arrives together with the Diamond and Platinum that should be leaving today. will want to see if it makes any difference in my system. would be great if it did, since it's very practical

[reverendo]

Aubisque arrived today. here my first impressions

Diamond and Platinum arrive on the 9th

[reverendo]

since I was asked in the other thread just wanted to make it clear here, too: I tested the filter, not the USB cable

Best regards

André

[reverendo]

I thought we discuss USB cables here rather than filters etc

that is true, but since it relates to USB cables and there is actually a cable with this filter in it (which I don't have) I thought I'd just give a heads-up. I won't share my findings here, I'm just refering to the place where I will be doing so that those who are interested may have a chance to have a look at it

best regards

André

[reverendo]

You are definitely an adventurous audiophile, I went to ultrafi website and together with Geoff Kate's Machina Dynamica, I find that almost everything said sounded like some serious snake oil... Any company that mentions years of research without discussing anything about it, where everything is made to look top-secret technology or proprietary and where the owner likes to call himself an Esquire! I would be totally suspicious.

Im glad its working out for you, but even with your observations I am not that adventurous with my money... I guess Im a partial believer in all things esoteric.

guydebord,

I've learned throughout the years that even though someone can not necessarily explain what they're doing or when I can't understand the underlying reasoning, I've taken a kind of pragmatic approach to things that are not in my domain of knowledge. I don't understand electronics so I won't pretend to, but that's why there is a 10-day trial period in order for me to evaluate if it works in my situation. the two major differences in my system where actually pretty clear to someone who has a minimum of listening training, though I'm sure that they can and will be different with other variables. the other differences weren't that obvious, but are still there.

that's why I'm waiting on the Diamond and Platinum in order to have at least other USB cables in order to assess if the results will be different. will post once I get the chance to compare the cables and then listen to them with the Aubisque in the system.

what I mean to say is that there are clear differences in regard to what it does, but the jury's still out on to whether I'll keep it or not

best regards

André

[reverendo]

A couple of newbie questions -

 

Are people finding less of a difference with SPDIF cables than USB?

 

I am surprised to see a couple mention that decay can become excessive. So far I have always seen that - more is better..providing more cues to timbre & how a instrument resonates and the acoustics/sound-staging of room. I can imagine it becoming excessive if instruments become excessively loose or rooms become to reverby/far away...can anyone clarify what happens with too much?

Savage,

IMO too much HF decay can smear the soundstage. The sound is spacious and big, but not well defined since notes last longer than they start blending into each other. OTOH I just got back from the Meyerson here in Dallas and the decay was long, but still very well defined, which shows that a long decay doesn't have to smear things up. In my case the Clearlink Plus gives me long e clear decay.

Best regards

[reverendo]

Hello André,

 

there is a certain likelyhood that there is a ferrite bead in that adaptor. These things are not unusual in USB cables and often used in consumer electronics.

Maybe you wanna A/B the adaptor to a standard bead like this and report back:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5108[/ATTACH]

I have once seen a cable that had an USB isolator (ADuM4160) curcuit built into it. I have never seen an implementation of this curcuit small enough for your adaptor, though and it would also need external power to eventually improve anything.

Obviously I cannot prove that. I might be totally wrong, this is pure speculation.

Progear,

this might make sense. maybe it would only be the effects of a ferrite bead-like structure, but wouldn't be able to use one with my current cable. look at how it looks like: Clearlink USB Cable with PLUS Upgrade - 3 Length-Mapleshade (click on additional images in order to see why).

let's see what the results are with other cables

best regards

[reverendo]

Today both the Platinum and Diamond arrived from thecableco and I had the chance to sit down for quite a while and get some good first impressions. First I compared the Platinum to my current USB cable the MP Clearlink Plus.

just for the record: these are my impressions in my system, so YMMV. I'm not looking to find the best cable out there, but the best cable for my system. keep that in mind.

 

Platinum

• is more detailed
  
• sound is more precise and defined
  
• LFs are deeper and drier
  
• is as fast as the Clearlink - in some tracks it seemed even faster
  
• has HF decay as long as the Clearlink, but a little more refined
  
• has cleaner mids
  
• slight emphasis on upper-mids; slight glare
  
• overall more refined
  
• has a blacker background
  
• more transparent, but less clear
  
• better timbres and textures
  
• better depth
  
• clearly better with symphonic orchestras, especially strings
  
• soundstage not as wide as Clearlink
  
• 
  

 

Clearlink

• LFs and lower mids less precise and defined
  
• timbres and textures sound somewhat smeared compared to the Platinum
  
• slightly veiled mids
  
• HFs basically on the same level, but a little less refined
  
• wider soundstage
  
• doesn't emphasize upper mids which makes it sound a little bit more natural in regard to those frequencies
  
• is clearer, but less transparent
  
• positioning on soundstage is slightly better
  

Looking both lists it may seem that the Platinum was way better than the Clearlink, but that wouldn't be entirely true. Both are kind of the same breed. The Platinum did better most of the Clearlinks qualities, but it wasn't by a wide margin. The main differences would be the LFs and mids which are cleaner and more precise. There is an overall better tonal balance. If I had to describe the differeces I'd probably say that the Clearlink is clearer (as if being shined upon from above), but the Platinum is more transparent and refined. I hope at least a few get the picture

Tomorrow I'll probably post today's first impressions comparing the Platinum and the Diamond.

Best regards

[reverendo]

Reverendo:

Despite my not posting to this thread (as I have nothing to contribute at this time), please be assured that I am watching with interest and appreciate your detailed observations. As amazing as my system is at this point, I am, believe it or not, still using a 0.5 meter Belkin semi-generic USB cable into my A+>NOS DAC. I am ready and willing to drop up to about $280 on a great cable. I'm sure I'll borrow a couple from The Cable Co. library first, but I'd like to narrow it down before I do.

 

So everybody, please keep these comparisons coming!

 

Thanks,

ALEX

it's my pleasure, since I've dependend on many other people to get a certain short list together for the multitude of options we have out there...

btw, that's a great looking room that you have there and I see that you went all Hovland. now I'm kind of curious as to how it sounds, since I've never listened to any of their kit

 

I am also enjoying and benefitting from all the information here.

But what do you mean when you say something "is clearer, but less transparent" ?

I now see that I chose the wrong adjective (sorry, but English is not my first language). I'll try to describe it: it's as if I were looking into aquarium1 (Clearlink) that is being shone upon from above, but the water isn't as transparent as the water in another aquarium (Platinum) that doesn't have the light. in the first case the shade of the upper part is lighter than the rest, since it's not completely transparent/clear. did that make any sense or did I make it worse??? :D

[reverendo]

btw, how do I edit my previous post in order to fix the adjectives? can anyone help me out?

[reverendo]

I believe after 10 minutes (time of post, not last edit) you can't, since the edit function is then "off"?!

 

Me too, by the way, I've been observing this thread with great interest. Wondering if the cable you got is all new? If so, the upper-midrange glare might still improve with some run-in time.

 

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Hi David,

that's unfortunate. why would they configure it to work that way?

The cables are all burnt-in. they come from thecableco's library.

I hope I get around to posting the second comparison sometime soon.

Best regards

 

BTW, where are you in Switzerland, if you don't mind my asking. My parents live in Basel and I've visited a few audio shops in the region.

[reverendo]

both Clearlink and Platinum are 1m. the Diamond is 1.5m which is the length that thecableco have in their library

[reverendo]

this is, of course, in my system. take into account that I can't really talk about lower bass, since though my speakers might embarrass even some good floorstanders, they still are bookshelves.

I'll get right to the point:

 

Platinum

• has dryer and faster bass
  
• is overall slightly faster
  
• HF decay is practically the same as Diamond
  
• tends to be more neutral/analytical
  
• has slightly better layering
  
• soundstage is a little more precise and defined
  
• overall is more defined and precise
  
• leading edge is faster and more defined
  
• 
  

 

Diamond

• bass is slightly fuller, without any loss of detail
  
• a little less defined, but as detailed as the Platinum
  
• has a larger and wider soundstage
  
• quality and decay of HFs is excellent without any obvious differences
  
• voices sound better, more real
  
• has more of an organic sound
  
• tends to be euphonic, without loss of details - slightly "warm"
  
• is less defined, but sounds a little more natural
  
• 
  

 

One thing that has to be acknowledged is that I don't lose any detail whatsoever with any of these cables. Their differences seem to be more in the nature of pov. The Platinum has a faster and more precise leading edge which results in a faster and more defined overall sound. The Diamond has a more organic and natural sound with slighty slower and richer bass, but without being bloated, etc. Voices sounded better with the Diamond, but bear in mind that we're talking about very subtle, albeit clear, differences.

ATM I tend to prefer the Diamond in my system.

In a few days the new entry-level Synergistic Research will arrive from thecableco.

Best regards

André

[reverendo]

the Synergistic Research SE USB Active digital link has arrived... very curious to compare it to the others

[reverendo]

Today I was able to compare the cables that I have been wanting to listen to side-by-side for quite a while: the Synergistic Research Active SE USB link, the WireWorld Platinum and AudioQuest Diamond.

First I had to find out which of Enigma Tuning Bullets (gotta laugh at these names ) would work best in my system. I started with the gray, then changed to silver, because of the limited treble extension with the gray, and finally opted for the black one, which, without a doubt, had better bass, treble and overall sound than the other two.

I then started comparing the three cables, always listening to the SR as second (eg track 1: WW-SR-AQ, track 2: AQ-WW-SR, etc.).

Since I knew the traits of the WW and the AQ this method made understanding the differences between them easier. Right from the start I'd like to state that all three have different strengths, but are excellent and I could happily live with any of them. Due to the change in method I'll put my notes per track.

 

1 - Michael Jackson / Jam (artificial depth, resolution of information overload and bass)

• SR more depth than the others
  
• AQ more musical bass
  
• AQ faster bass than SR, but slower than WW
  
• SR more texture than AQ and WW
  
• 
  

Preference: AQ = SR> WW

 

2 - Michael Jackson / Invincible (soundstage and artificial spaciality, bass extension and speed)

• SR more detailed than AQ and WW
  
• SR equivalent bass to WW, but richer. AQ has the best bass
  
• AQ better with voices
  
• SR more 3D and holographic than WW and AQ
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ = SR> WW

 

3 - Prince / Life o 'the Party (deep bass, HF decay and pop mids)

• HF decay AQ = SR
  
• SR voices a little better than AQ. WW voices inferior
  
• WW fastest
  
• WW more HF information
  
• 
  
• 
  

Preference: SR> AQ> WW

 

4 - Esperanza Spalding / Ponta de Areia (LF speed Muringa, drums, texture, BGV, piano)

• SR VERY 3D
  
• Voices: AQ> SR> WW
  
• plasticity: SR> AQ> WW
  
• soundstage height: WW=AQ> SR
  
• AQ best bass
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ> SR> WW

 

5 - Esperanza Spalding / I Adore You (micro-dynamics and upper mids)

• AQ better textures, timbres and clearer
  
• SR more detailed and cleaner mids
  
• SR more plasticity
  
• Speed: WW=AQ> SR
  
• WW more HF information than AQ and SR
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ> SR> WW

 

6 - Kurt Elling / Moonlight Serenade (mids, voice, ambience, refinement)

• SR more plasticity
  
• Voices: AQ> SR> WW
  
• SR cleaner mids
  
• SR very 3D
  
• HF information: WW>AQ>SR
  
• 
  

 

Preference: SR = AQ> WW

 

7 - Kurt Elling / Detour Ahead (imaging on natural soundstage)

• SR excellent spatiality (3D)
  
• soundstage imaging: SR = AQ (though different)> WW
  
• WW more HF informatio
  
• 
  

 

Preference: SR> AQ> WW

 

8 - Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Abbado / Mahler 5th (orchestral soundstage, acoustic LFs, timbres and textures, macro and micro dynamics, spatiality)

• soundstage: SR> AQ> WW
  
• bass: AQ = WW> SR
  
• SR cleaner mids
  
• SR more detailed than WW, except for LFs
  
• Timbres: AQ> SR> WW
  
• Definition: WW> AQ> SR
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ> SR = WW

 

9 - Peter Gabriel / San Jacinto (New Blood - 24/48) (definition, resolution, refinement, timbre, articulation, attack, treble decay, flow, voices)

• SR 3D
  
• Mid-bass: AQ> WW = SR
  
• voices better with AQ
  
• WW mids slightly veiled (something that I observed in most tracks)
  
• WW fastest bass, AQ bass more musical
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ> SR> WW

 

10 - Leonardo Gonçalves / Yerushalayim Shel Zahav (24/88.2) (piano, ambience, string texture, resolution, refinement, timbres, "air")

• clean piano with WW, SR has better timbre and texture of piano
  
• SR more accurate ambience, more 3D
  
• WW best bass
  
• AQ best timbres and textures
  
• 
  

 

Preference: AQ = SR = WW

 

A few last comments:

The differences are small and probably very system-dependent. If I could have the plasticity and three-dimensionality of the SR with the texture, the HF decay and bass of the AQ I would be perfectly happy. Since I haven't found all that in one cable my preference is towards the AQ Diamond. This does not mean that the Platinum isn't a great cable, but in my system it did hi-fi better than the others, but did not have the natural and balanced sound of the Diamond nor the spatiality of SR. I really believe that the outcome would be different in another system. Usually I listen more analytically, but the Diamond allowed me to continue hearing everything, albeit more naturally.

At the end of the hearing inserted the Aubisque between the Diamond and the Cantata. This increased the density of the lower mids and the upper bass in a good way, but, once again, I lost a good deal of HF decay.

Anyway, my next quest it to find a reasonably-priced Diamond. If I find a great deal on on a SR SE USB Active or a Platinum I'll probably go with one of them, since cost/benefit is still very important to me.

Best regards

André