• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Audioquest Water XLR Interconnects

O

onehorsepony

Member
Hi all -

Just installed a pair of Audioquest Water XLR Interconnects between my preamp and my monoblocks.

They are replacing a pair of Cardas Quadlink 5-c XLR Interconnects.

I'd like to hear what difference I should be experiencing, then I will tell you what I am finding.

Please let's keep this focused on the Audioquest Water XLR Interconnects

Thanks in advance....

Speackers: B&W 802 D (First of the Diamonds)
Amps: Classe Cam-200
Preamp: Bryston BP-26
CD Player: Mark Levinson 5100
 
Register to hide this ad
I'm finding that the Audioquest Water XLR interconnects sound different then the Cards 5-C XLR interconnects.

Maybe everyone can help with the below statements?

1. They sound clearer or brighter then the Cardas cables

2. Seems like the bass is lacking and system doesn't have a warm sound anymore

3. Musicals and live recordings sound more open, while many average recordings are sounding shrill/harsh

4. Almost reminiscent of my Thiel speakers 3.7 I used to have

5. Almost like a double edge sword.... clearer sounding on good recordings, and harsh/edgy sounding on average recordings

Can anyone help explain what I'm hearing, or what is going on?

Thanks.....
 
my cd player, mark levinson 5100, has 7 PCM filters:

fast minimum phase
slow minimum phase
apodiz fast
hybrid fast minimum phase
brickwall
fast linear
slow linear

I'm unfamilair with the concept of PCM filters. Would any of these settings take the edge off of my issue of brightness?
 
UPDATE… so this is what I’ve found thus far. I’ve gone back and forth on now 3 filters and can reproduce the same conclusions.

HYBRID FAST MINIMUM PHASE
I’ve found this filter to be very resolving especially on vocals. Allows any sibilance to be more prominent. However, after about an hour of listening, I start interpreting the filter as harsh/bright sounding, almost grating. Reducing the volume helps but removes the bass of the music I’m listening to

FAST LINEAR
This filters seems to calm the upper end down some, but at the same time feel like i’m losing some of the resolution in the vocals.

APODIZ FAST
I thought this filter calmed the ‘sizzle’ down from the HYBRID FAST MINIMUM PHASE filter. Seemed to allow the system to be played at moderate and louder volumes eliminating any listener fatique. Thought this is a filter to consider. Had my wife listen to this filter on several recordings, A/B comparing it to the HFMP filter. She felt it made the sound more 2 dimensional, ‘deep’ sounding, un involving.

Does any of this make any sense?

Which one would you suggest to try next?

thanks in advance…
 
onehorsepony said:
UPDATE… so this is what I’ve found thus far. I’ve gone back and forth on now 3 filters and can reproduce the same conclusions.

HYBRID FAST MINIMUM PHASE
I’ve found this filter to be very resolving especially on vocals. Allows any sibilance to be more prominent. However, after about an hour of listening, I start interpreting the filter as harsh/bright sounding, almost grating. Reducing the volume helps but removes the bass of the music I’m listening to

FAST LINEAR
This filters seems to calm the upper end down some, but at the same time feel like i’m losing some of the resolution in the vocals.

APODIZ FAST
I thought this filter calmed the ‘sizzle’ down from the HYBRID FAST MINIMUM PHASE filter. Seemed to allow the system to be played at moderate and louder volumes eliminating any listener fatique. Thought this is a filter to consider. Had my wife listen to this filter on several recordings, A/B comparing it to the HFMP filter. She felt it made the sound more 2 dimensional, ‘deep’ sounding, un involving.

Does any of this make any sense?

Which one would you suggest to try next?

thanks in advance…
Click to expand...

Yes, makes perfect sense. This is the constant dilemma of audio - different things sound different and one is not necessarily better than another. Just remember that when you hear live un-amplified music (the Hall can make a difference) generally the sound is warm and maybe less "resolving" than many "HiFi" systems. The imaging and soundstage, while impressive, tend to be a bit less "specific" than we sometimes hear in our systems. Of course, most recordings of Orchestra's are made with the mics only a few feet back from the front row of the ensemble, so .... it's a slightly different perspective. From your description I would probably select Fast Linear and leave it alone, but that's just me. You may find that different setting work better with different recordings - since the "mastering' process includes a similar set of decisions that were made by someone else who listens and hears differently than you do.

Regarding your cable discussion, the Cardas 5C is one of the warmest and most "rolled off" in the HF end of most any cable out there (I used to be a Cardas and an AQ dealer). The 5C (which I don't think they make anymore) tended to be useful as a tone control to tame down systems that tended to be "too bright". AQ's are a different beast, so .... pick what you like to listen to. I use both Cardas and AQ in my system. I use Cardas Neutral Reference XLR between DAC and pre-amp, Cardas Neutral Reference RCA between Phono Pre and Pre-amp, AQ Panther (DBS) XLR between pre-amp and amp, DIY Kimber/Klee between TurnTable and Phono Pre and AQ CV-6 (DBS) Bi-Wire between amp and speakers. BTW - The 5C Power Cable was and still is one of my favorites!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom