Deviousalet's System

[deviousalet]

I started this hobby from the rational perspective that bits-are-bits and electrons just need sufficient wire gauge to flow perfectly. However my understanding was corrected by hearing unmistakable differences when switching cables, and down that rabbit hole I've gone. As often happens with education I now know more and feel like I know less of what's to be known. In the end my music sounds better though, which is the point for me. I'm glad your system sounds wonderful. Enjoy!

[ssfas]

My Devialet dealer became an Audioquest dealer and a chap called Powell gave a demo recently. If we hadn’t had tickets for the ballet I would have gone. I might have learnt something. There do seem to be very few dealers here who bother with power products. Devialet told me that the are totally unnecessary with Expert.

[deviousalet]

The theoretical debate between the "measure" and "listen" camps is less interesting to me than hearing a difference myself. If you're interested then try listening to what others recommend. If you're not interested then enjoy what you have. Because I hear a noticeable improvement from some tweaks I'm interested. This is my system thread where I document some of the interesting things I find in hopes that others might find that helpful.

[deviousalet]

A question in another thread prompted me to re-examine the difference between power cords so I did a listening test this morning. Upgrades in my system have made the difference between two good power cords even more dramatic. I'd be very surprised if anyone didn't hear the difference. Anyway, thanks for interesting me in doing this listening test again.
https://devialetchat.com/Thread-Synergis...0#pid83040

[Antoine]

The theoretical debate between the "measure" and "listen" camps is less interesting to me than hearing a difference myself. If you're interested then try listening to what others recommend. If you're not interested then enjoy what you have. Because I hear a noticeable improvement from some tweaks I'm interested. This is my system thread where I document some of the interesting things I find in hopes that others might find that helpful.

Amen! I agree in full.

As always, thank you for sharing!

[deviousalet]

In 2015 I tested interlink cables between my Devialet amps and preferred the RCA-XLR connection. Tonight I tested that again with a new cable (2019 AudioQuest Diamond with RCA on both ends). The RCA-RCA connection sounds more focused, precise, and present.

Devialet has said they've improved the interlink with hardware and firmware updates, and now say that RCA or XLR shouldn't make much difference. I can't verify that on the Devialet 400 I had in 2015, but on my current Devialet 1000 the same cable I preferred in 2015 (AudioQuest Raven RCA-XLR) is clearly bettered by the AudioQuest Diamond RCA-RCA. The cables have the same metal and geometry, but the Diamond has more noise dissipation, an improved RF trap, and possibly improved connectors (but less shielding). So it could be cable improvements or Devialet improvements. Of course other things in my system have changed since 2015. I upgraded power cables from Shunyata Z-PC10 to Delta NR and upgraded my wall outlet from a Leviton 8300-HW to an AudioQuest NRG Edison, but the only change I made tonight was the interlink cable. I guess I could test this further as I still have the old AudioQuest Eagle Eye RCA-RCA, but at the moment the scientific method seems secondary to even more wonderful music listening.

Update: I compared the AudioQuest Diamond to my old AudioQuest Eagle Eye (predecessor to the Diamond), and while the Diamond is clearly best the Eagle Eye sounds better than the Raven, which is the same cable except for being RCA-XLR. So, the cable change prompted this listening test but it is probably a change Devialet made that now lets me prefer an RCA-RCA over RCA-XLR interlink connection.

[deviousalet]

I made a major update to my system: upgrading speaker cables from Audioquest Castle Rock to Audioquest Thunderbird Zero/Bass (both 8' bi-wired).

I had read numerous reports of how much better the new Audioquest Zero cables sounded than even more-expensive Audioquest cables from the last generation, and when I was offered a set at more than half off I had to try them. I remembered the improvement the Castle Rock made over some pretty good cables I used previously (Soundlink Red Dragon 11-AWG OFHC copper, Blue Jeans / Belden 10-AWG, and Belden 12-AWG ETP copper) so I had high hopes.

The Castle Rock bi-wire was splitting a 12 AWG cable while the Thunderbird bi-wire is two runs of 10.5 AWG, so if nothing else there's more than double the copper. Both Audioquest cables use the same geometry and almost the same metals (PCS+ except for some LGC in the Thunderbird Bass. The Thunderbird are better shielded and grounded. Anyway, on to listening.

I've used the Castle Rock for years and the Thunderbird were brand new, so I expected the new cables to need some break-in before sounding their best. I'm writing this after maybe 50 hours with the Thunderbirds, but already the differences are worth writing about.

My B&W 804d3 speakers are fairly small and efficient, so I didn't think that I needed bigger wires, but whatever the reason the improvement is in the magnitude of "Wow, I didn't know that my speakers could do that!" The bass is massively improved, both in quantity and quality. I use SAM at 100%, but hadn't ever complained about a lack of bass. In fact I chose the 804d3 because they have the best bass I've heard in a small floor-standing speaker. Now I'm hearing far more texture in bass strings, feeling more impact from drums, and hearing more detail in synthetic drops. The bass is simply remarkable, and totally delightful.

Dynamics are also remarkable, and even though I'm not picky about that aspect of music the difference is amazing between these cables. It is as if someone turned off dynamic-range compression in an AV Receiver. I'm still getting used to it, but think that I'll like it once it quits being surprising. There is also a decrease in noise, or a "blacker background", which only enhances the floor from which the dynamics jump. I was concerned that this "quiet" was smoothing over detail. After all, an easy way to decrease noise is to filter out frequencies at the cost of hearing detail contained in those frequencies (the balance between "smooth" and "detailed". However the decreased noise floor with the Thunderbirds seems to be purely positive.

Initially I thought that some detail was missing, but whether it is break-in or me adjusting, I'm hearing more detail now than with the old cables, even though it is within the context of the fuller frequency response. As always, some apparent detail can be enhanced by emphasizing high frequencies and removing low frequencies. It is like moving from small monitors to full-range speakers: it can seem like detail is missing until one adjusts to the fuller context. The Thunderbird cables add so much bass context that it took me adjusting to that before I started hearing the treble detail. This still may improve with break-in, but even now I'm enjoying hearing more detail at all frequencies. It isn't a huge improvement, but I'm finding more little things to enjoy in my music: a shaker in the background, a light touch of symbols, and some soft sounds becoming clearer as to what instrument or technique they are. For instance, I've attended some house concerts lately where I've been less than 10' from a cellist, so have seen more of how they make some of the percussive sounds. Therefore I'm listening for those details, and hearing more of what I heard in person through the Thunderbirds than I did through the Castle Rock. To be fair, I'm not doing A-B comparisons, just enjoying familiar music in new ways. There's also improvement to sound-staging, less in overall size than in more differentiation between the location of sounds. I don't notice any change in tonality beyond the massively-increased bass.

Overall the Thunderbirds have the same character as the Castle Rock, but are a massive improvement in bass, a shocking increase in dynamics, and a interesting improvement in detail throughout the spectrum. The complete effect is entrancing, and simply amazing how much more a change in cables gets out of my speakers. This is type of change that makes it a delight to go wandering through my collection of music, enjoying each piece anew.

[deviousalet]

For my next listening test I compared ethernet cables.

I recently read good reviews of the Cable Matters and Monoprice cat8 cables. They're cheap enough that I ordered a few for non-audiophile networking, but gave them a listen just incase. I had been using two Audioquest Vodka and two Audioquest Cinnamon cables as well as non-audiophile cat7 patch cords. The cat8 cables have better shielding, and the Cable Matters uses high-quality connectors. The Audioquest cables use solid-core instead of stranded metal and the best connectors. I was interested to hear which sounded best, and where in my network. Then I saw a deal on Audioquest Diamond and a long Vodka cable, so added those to the comparison.

The patch cord candidates were
- Monoprice cat8 ($2)
- Cable Matters cat8 ($12)
- Audioquest Cinnamon cat7 ($80 list, $50 street)
- Audioquest Vodka cat7 ($350 list, $150 street)
- Audioquest Diamond cat7 ($1400 list, $400 street)

I tested these cables in three locations: between my Devialet and switch (the last leg), between the switch and wall (the middle leg), and between my modem/router and the wall (the first leg). To picture this another way, my network is: Cable Modem/Router > patch cord 1 > in-wall run of cat6 cable > patch cord 2 > switch > patch cord 3 > Devialet.

The Monoprice sounded like a computer cable, and was quickly relegated to bits-are-bits duties. Compared to the others, the Monoprice sounded harsh (glare), noisy (lack of "black" background), lacked bass, yet also hid detail.

On the other hand, I'm rather impressed with the Cable Matters, which is far more cost effective than either Audioquest, yet sounds better than any other non-audiophile ethernet cable I've heard. It still has some glare, but I'm very sensitive to that so others may not object. The background isn't as quiet (black) as through any Audioquest. That's the biggest difference I hear between audiophile and non-audiophile ethernet cables. The bass is certainly not as good as the Audioquest Vodka, but not bad nor far worse than the Audioquest Cinnamon, and the treble was even closer.

The Audioquest Cinnamon's lack of glare and blacker background were instantly noticeable. This might not matter if you're less sensitive to glare or have a system tending towards smoothness. My B&W 804d3 speakers are not in that camp, being more revealing than smoothing, so I appreciate how the Audioquest cables rid my system of some harshness (glare) compared to the Cable Matters cable. I chose my speaker (and amps) because I enjoy detail. The Cable Matters cable was a big improvement over the Monoprice in not hiding detail, but in direct comparison to the Audioquest cables it becomes clear that some of that apparent detail comes from the Cable Matters removes some bass, thus emphasizing treble detail. It really isn't bad, certainly very enjoyable, but the Cinnamon is comparable (with other benefits).

The Audioquest Vodka is clearly superior in all ways, with more apparent detail yet better bass. I don't notice less glare or blacker backgrounds than the Cinnamon cables, but the Cinnamon has noticeably less detail and bass.

The Audioquest Diamond is a bigger jump up in detail than the Vodka is from the Cinnamon. I can see why some people find the Diamond harsh. It is very revealing. On harsh recordings it conveys that harshness, while the Vodka softens the edges just a little (and the Cinnamon more). On good recordings the Diamond lets the quality shine through. I especially notice the details of transients and treble. While the Cable Matters emphasizes detail by filtering out bass the Diamond conveys both the detail and bass. There may even be more bass, I certainly enjoyed the details of the bass more through the Diamond than any of the other cables. It seems that after listening a while I get used to the sound of the Diamond, no longer hearing any harshness but enjoying the detail. On a bad recording I can enjoy switching to Vodka, but I quickly miss the detail of the Diamond, which is my overall favorite in my system.

All these comparisons between cables were true in all three patch-cord locations, but were slightly more noticeable closer to the Devialet. So I wound up using Audioquest Diamond cables between the Devialet and switch (final leg) and between the switch and wall (middle leg), then Audioquest Vodka between the other end of the wall and the modem/router (first leg). The Cable Matters went down the hierarchy to home-theatre duties.

While I had a search running for the Audioquest patch cords I saw a deal on an Audioquest Vodka long enough for my in-wall run, so I tried that out. I tried it both from the modem/router directly to the Devialet (bypassing the switch and patch cords) and from the modem/router to the switch with a Diamond patch cord from the switch to the Devialet. The Vodka is easily better than the computer-grade cat5e I had in the wall, as I expected it would be given my experiments with the patch cords. I thought that a direct connection might sound best because of fewer connections and no computer-grade switch in the middle. To my surprise, having the Diamond in the chain enhanced the sound even versus a direct run of Vodka. I still can't quite believe this, so keep going back and forth, but I hear more detail when the Diamond is in the mix. What an interesting hobby this is.

The range of differences between these ethernet cables isn't massive. It is not as much as interlink cables between dual-mono Devialet amps, nor as much as speaker cables.

This test was educational for me. I hope it was of interest to you.

[markush]

Wow - the upgrade to Thunderbird Combo (Zero & Bass) must have been amazing. I currently have a 440 Pro and also intend to get a Niagara 3000 or 5000 (still not sure which to choose) along with a AQ Thunder High Current for connecting the Niagara and two Blizzard for the Devialet monos. Digital cable betweeen the Devialet should be a AQ Coffee.
As speaker cable I will go for a Robin Hood Zero&Bass bi-wiring combo.
Were you also able to test/compare some of the mentioned updates I am planning?
Regarding upgrading the ethernet cable - I still wonder if there is really such a noticeable difference?

[deviousalet]

Markush: I'm very happy with my upgrades, but they're well into diminishing return territory for the most part. The difference between a computer-grade and audiophile ethernet cable is obvious, but the difference between the Audioquest Vodka and Diamond ethernet is relatively minor.

I've found the interlink cable to be one of the most important things in the chain, so I'd expect an upgrade to the Diamond to be one of the most cost-effective upgrades for you. The Coffee is a fine cable though, so maybe not. It all depends on your ears and system I think.

I was surprised at how much my B&W 804d3 speakers benefitted from larger speaker cables. If you're still using B&W 802d3 speakers I would not buy 15AWG cables, such as the Robin Hood. Even doubled (bi-wire) that's only a combined 12AWG. My Castle Rock were 12AWG and my Thunderbird are double 10.5AWG. Other speakers may be different, but with B&W I wouldn't skimp on gauge to get improved technology. I made that mistake, so pass it on for your consideration. When I bought the Castle Rock I was advised by Audioquest that 12AWG was probably not thick enough for my B&W speakers. The electrical math didn't make sense to me (plenty of wire for the load) so I ignored the audiophile advice then. As with so much else in this hobby the music matters more than the math.

It is easy to improve upon the stock power cords, and adding any good power conditioning will probably be effective. That said, when I tried a Furman power conditioner it was detrimental, so one must choose a good one. I haven't tried Audioquest power products. Their power conditioners apparently can hum, which would annoy me. Their high-end power cords are apparently really stiff, which might make them unworkable in my constrained setup. I bet both sound wonderful though. I keep thinking of using The Cable Company Lending Library to compare Shunyata, Audioquest, and Synergistic Research power cables. Comparing things in your own system seems ideal.