New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Got my Grover UR5s - Page 3

post #31 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by euclid
im looking forward to hearing another perspective.
If you haven't already, look into the two reviews of the Oriteks at Positve Feedback, which offer some down to earth quantitative comments about the X1s:

Oritek X1 review 1

Oritek X1 review 2

I walked away from the reviews with the impression that the X1s are yet another cable that is good within its price range, and that it, like any other audio equipment, has its own specific set of strengths and weaknesses. In the end this audio business is all about tradeoffs. I've read so many glowing reviews of something lesser priced bettering something more expensive in exactly an area or two (in the X1's case it seems to be a more detailed cable than cables in its price area, and maybe beyond), and suddenly it's the next best thing since the CD was invented. I tend to take equipment like that with a grain of salt. Bettering something more expensive in an area or two doesn't tell the whole story...there's always tradeoffs somewhere.

I haven't heard the X1s but this just rather reminds me of my experience with the original Grovers...the ones Pigmode introduced to Headfi. Yet another good cable within its price range that generated god-like reviews, but in the end, not a complete giant killer to my ears.
post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordins
It seems eyeteeth's arguing that UR5 is "brighter" than X-1, given other characteristics are equal.
I never said any such thing. The UR may seem the darker one due to music seeming more subdued through it. (I've dropped the number designation, it's become insane).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertigo-1
I walked away from the reviews with the impression that the X1s are yet another cable that is good within its price range, and that it, like any other audio equipment, has its own specific set of strengths and weaknesses.
Don't overlook the very lofty Oritek X-1 10 Audio Review.

So far the X-1 is the only cable that lives up to the hype for me, everything else has disappointed. I don't know what it's weakness is; I guess I'll find out when I hear the X-2 as it's when something better arrives that the weaknesses of previous cables become apparent. If I'm the only one who has an experience this elevated, well I'll just have to live with that.

So what's taking DA so long? Two weeks isn't enough time?
post #33 of 96
I have heard the X-1's (I own them), the UR2's (own them), and the UR5's (Grover sent me, I listened for a little while; but I returned them when he told me there was an even better version out, which is on its way).

While I may not "gush" like Eyeteeth does (sorry if that's offensive), I still concur in general with his findings.

The X-1, in my system, just seems to open things up more top to bottom. The analogy of letting water travel through a larger pipe is a good one. That is literally the sense I got when the X-1's were put in my system.

That said, the X-1's are not for everyone. They seem to be ruthlessly revealing! I consider my system very good (Eastsound CD-E5 feeding Belles 250i integrated, feeding Eminent Technology LFT-16 speakers; or, the E5 feeding a TrevorNetwork-built Max'd Dynahi).

With most other cables, this sounded great. Yet with the X-1's, it opened up even more, seemed that much more transparent. At the same time, the X-1's showed me I had a VERY slight midrange glare or sheen. At first I had thought it was the cables. But in trying about 4 or 5 other cables, I realized it is barely there, and the other cables may just be masking it a bit. I was lucky that toeing the speakers out a bit ameliorated the problem for the most part, without causing other problems. It doesn't bother me at all now.

Because of this revealing quality, other cables may go better in some systems than the X-1. The UR5 I had was VERY smooth, and extended on both sides very well. It was detailed, transparent, and very noticably better than the UR2, the last Grover version I had.

In my system, it was not as open and transparent ultimately as the X-1. Toeing my speakers in again revealed the glare, but it was less apparent. The music was still incredible, though, and I look VERY forward to hearing the U6.

I think the Grover's and the Oritek's are indeed "giant killers." I have heard cables in my system that cost up to almost $1k (Nordost Quatro FIl, Ensemble Dynaflux, Cardas Neutral Ref, PLENTY others). Any cable that competes with these cables, and betters them in many or all ways, is a giant-killer in my book. Is it the end-all? Maybe not. But even giant-killers can be killed themselves

And yet, as good as the UR5 is, the X-1 takes a step even higher in my system! The transparency and openness, and its ability to seemingly just let the music truly flow, is like I have only heard with some BIG dollar systems. I remember this type of feeling of ease of flow and transparency from a system that was priced around $40-45K (FYI, it used Nordost Valhalla cables).

Bottom line: both of these cables say a LOT about the price/performance ratio, and about the capability of cables REGARDLESS of price.
post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeteeth
Don't overlook the very lofty Oritek X-1 10 Audio Review.

So far the X-1 is the only cable that lives up to the hype for me, everything else has disappointed. I don't know what it's weakness is; I guess I'll find out when I hear the X-2 as it's when something better arrives that the weaknesses of previous cables become apparent. If I'm the only one who has an experience this elevated, well I'll just have to live with that.
Just to add my note to this. I read the 10Audio review, and saw the compairson to the Nordost Valahalla. I also read the Valhalla review there as a reference, and found my experience didn't exactly mirror 10Audio's. I think the Nordost is more system-dependant, and I have heard it sound fantastic!

That said, I agree with 10Audio's and Eyeteeth's enthusiasm for the X-1. I HAVE had my experience "elevated" as Eyeteeth says. I think reviews get enthusiastic over finding ANY bargain. Sonic Impact T-amp is a prime example. How much performance is packed into a $39 or less amp??!!!

Low priced cables that pack such performance are also raved over. And rightly so! The enthusiasm SHOULD show. What does need to be recognized is that these bargains are not necessarily the greatest, but it just take a LOT more money to beat them. Yet in my system, nothing so far has beat the X-1's outright. Literally, the ONLY thing I can think of that was a definite improvement over the X-1's was the soundstaging of the Zu cables (Varial and Ibis, when I had them in my ststem). But in all other aspects, and just the ability to play music, the X-1's are doing it best right now.
post #35 of 96
Shouldn't the X-1 evangelism be in it's own thread?

Pity a thread about Grover UR5 has become an all out thread hijack for Oritek.
post #36 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabbi1
Shouldn't the X-1 evangelism be in it's own thread?

Pity a thread about Grover UR5 has become an all out thread hijack for Oritek.

i can only take this further off topic, i received the x-1 today, needless to say i was excited to hook them up and start the listening.
this is the clash of the titans as far as i am concerned and its close.

i will say this about the transparancey, while the oritek is spacially more transparent in regards to headstage and ambience, i feel the u5 is the more transparent and convincing when it comes to accurate sound and recording reproduction. since the u5 sound is being heard from a less intimate perspective it can be disengaging in comparison to the x1.

* i am not hearing details in the x1 that are absent in the u5 (or vice versa). the difference between the two is the imaging, X-1 coveys details as slightly more present and realistic.

the u5 is the smoother of the 2, there is occasional grain in X-1 but as previously suggested the oritek does not sound too bright, (or too lean as i was expecting).
the u5 is absolutely controlled throughout the frequency range with no glare, no sonic flaw to be found... but maybe too controlled to be interesting???

burn-in is a serious consideration here. my set of ur4 prototype has completely opened up in regards to soundstage. it absolutely rivals and possibly excels the x-1 in that dimension but sonically id estimate the x1 as the better cable... however the ur4 sound is not as clean as the u5 which is why i still prefer the u5 more than the ur4 in my system. (its complicated)

this u5 has not spent significant time in continuous burn-in, most of the playtime has been real-world and i feel they have many hours to go before they rivial the ur4 in break-in. since the ur4 have gained spacial transparancy, loads of it, im going to say it straight right now. --> if the u5 can maintain its current sound while opening in dimension it will maintain its spot in my system, no doubt.
as of now, for absolute listening satisfaction and immersion without nitpicking the sonic signature too much (and competely ignoring price), the x-1 might be the keeper. in a nutshell it brings sound comparable to the u5 closer to the ur4 presentation which is what im after.

*the X-1 shipped burned-in. for those comparing the X-1 to a U5 out of the box, it is not a fair comparison the grovers need time to open up.

im going to continue listening as-is for a day and then ill move the u5 to a continuous burn and ill listen to the x-1 during that stage. i'll only know which im keeping after the u5 has had a fair chance to cook and maybe play some catchup.

edit: the ur4 is definately more expansive in soundstage than the x-1 but they are not imaging as well or keeping up with the X-1 dynamics. the oritek extension (high and low) is effortless, its makes for a very responsive and fast sound, the ur4 is less focused which sounds broader but more sloppy. between these two i prefer the x-1 for some of the same reasons i like the u5 more than the ur4.
post #37 of 96
Hi euclid, not sure U5 you mentioned is UR5 ??
post #38 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by euclid
i can only take this further off topic, i received the x-1 today, needless to say i was excited to hook them up and start the listening.
this is the clash of the titans as far as i am concerned and its close.

i will say this about the transparancey, while the oritek is spacially more transparent in regards to headstage and ambience, i feel the u5 is the more transparent and convincing when it comes to accurate sound and recording reproduction. since the u5 sound is being heard from a less intimate perspective it can be disengaging in comparison to the x1.

* i am not hearing details in the x1 that are absent in the u5 (or vice versa). the difference between the two is the imaging, X-1 coveys details as slightly more present and realistic.

the u5 is the smoother of the 2, there is occasional grain in X-1 but as previously suggested the oritek does not sound too bright, (or too lean as i was expecting).
the u5 is absolutely controlled throughout the frequency range with no glare, no sonic flaw to be found... but maybe too controlled to be interesting???

burn-in is a serious consideration here. my set of ur4 prototype has completely opened up in regards to soundstage. it absolutely rivals and possibly excels the x-1 in that dimension but sonically id estimate the x1 as the better cable... however the ur4 sound is not as clean as the u5 which is why i still prefer the u5 more than the ur4 in my system. (its complicated)
I still slightly prefer my Grover UR5 (cryo treated) to the Oritek X1 overall using main stereo system (not headphones).

The X1 is a great cable but has different sound signature, greater treble energy with more presence is main feature. This gives cable a fast clean detailed sound, and it may ultimately resolve finer details but it is very close in my main system, X1 shines a slightly brighter light on things that will appeal to those people interested in detail resolution and be sympathetic with thier systems......I believe in one professional review it was described as "listening at high altitude".

The Grover UR5 sounds more "earthbound" and has richer fuller sound that is more balanced and natural to my taste and sounds better playing a wider range of music including average recordings, the stage light may not be as bright but more comfortable/naturally lit for me, give me greater enjoyment listening to the music.

If we concede fine detail resolution to X1, the 3D soundstage size and integrity I give to slight edge to Grover UR5 though both are very good. The Grover UR5 stage sets deeper behind speakers like sitting 1/2 to 2/3 back in music hall which I prefer. The X1 in keeping with it greater treble presence moves listener closer about 1/3 from front of music hall

The reason I still give overall edge to UR5 is that it has rich natural sound with more body and bass extension, just allows you to relax and listen to the music, each person has thier priorities and so far Grover UR5 works best for me......UR6 soon.
post #39 of 96
DarkAngel,

So how do the Wolff cables compare to either of these?
post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcdonou
DarkAngel,
So how do the Wolff cables compare to either of these?
Not going to go into great detail here, but the Wolff Gold/Silver is even more finely detailed than X1 with better/larger soundstage, excellent 3D presentation that cannot remotely be appreciated using headphones, very impressive.

Overall reminds me of music from planar speaker like Magnapan/Martin Logan etc, effortless projection of fine music. Fans of X1 sound would really like these I'm sure but higher price means it competes more with X2 Oritek which has not been heard by me......that would be a better comparison X2 vs Wolff

Do search here for reviews by MarkL and KenW on Wolff Gold/Silver:
Wolff
post #41 of 96
DarkAngel, thanks for sharing your thoughts they are nearly parallel to mine at this point. so far my set of Grover ur5 have been cooking nonstop for 48 hours, switching signal direction about every 12 hours. i hooked them up and gave them an hour listen tonight.

the u5 have opened up alittle further and i completely understand where you are coming from with the space relationships. i only have headphones at this point but difference in positioning beween the x-1 and u5 is just as you describe and very obvious.

the x-1 is immersive and very surrounding, the u5 is more straight ahead. the result is the instrument imaging of the x-1 is clearer, details are more present and it gives the feeling of sound eminating from blackness. the u5 has the feeling of the sound together on a stage, there is less seperation, details are more distant but somehow vocal presentation is still VERY intimate, just as much as the x-1... i still believe the u5 genuinely sounds more natural, there is a very slight high frequency roll-off in comparison to the x-1 which might be attributed to increased capacitance on the grovers, i set the volume dial higher with the u5 to acheive my prefered listening level, the x-1 acheive the same volume on a lower dial setting and anything higher gets harsh and grainy, there is a fine line.

this is an upper frequency (and even general) harshness in the x-1. guitars can sound overly sythesized, even acoustic(???). snare drums are not realistic, and bass in gerneral (although impactful) is not very convincing. they are more fatiging and i have some ringing in my ears after a listening session.

in comparison the u5 is extremely natural, the harness is not present, vocals are real, drums are incredible. sonic signature is right where i prefer it. BUT with headphones it just does not have the engagment, i find myself drifting off in thought, with the x-1 i am in the music.

regarding speed, the x-1 definately has that high frequency dynamic nailed, but in the low end the u5 has topped the x-1, not only is bass more natural sounding in the u5 but it is genuinely more focused, faster, and more emotional.

to me its so ironic that DarkAngel made his comments based on a speaker setup b/c the whole time im thinking to myself, "wow these u5 must sound really great on speakers" i know im on the right track now

more comments to come after some more u5 burn-in but im prety doubtfull they will change much more at this point... alittle more seperation would be very welcome though, even if overall presetation regarding posistioning doesnt change. with headphones i still ultimately prefer to listen the x-1, but it is not without a feeling of regret and actively overlooking some sonic flaws (imho), i am curious what Grover has addressed with the ur6.

EDIT: bordins, yes these are the ur5, the reason i call them the u5 is b.c they have "grover u5" on the label. there was some confusion between two different versions of the ur4, i started calling the first one ur4 b.c it still had the "grover ur" label, i called the second the u4 b.c it has the "grover u4" label.
post #42 of 96
Hey Euclid
We are on the same page with UR5.......I will just let you write the impressions since I find analyzing/reviewing cables a labor and takes away from my real goal, music!
Not to take anything away from fans of X1 cables they are great but have a certain sound signature that will not universally appeal to all tastes and systems

You can definitely tweak your current UR5 to slightly higher level by deep cryo treating ($15 IC pair) and then using FryKleaner Cable Conditioner, these tweaks are discussed in detail in previous Grover threads but for newcomers:
Controlled Thermal Processing (Cryo)
(10-21 day turnaround time depending on owner Rick Diekmans travel schedule)
Hagerman Tech FryKleaner
(I just use the $159 circuit board Frykleaner model, Wolff and Oritek already use similar device on thier cables)

I have the Grover UR6 and will report more soon........
post #43 of 96
DA, so, if I interpret what you are saying, you would rate these 3 cables as follows:

UR5 > Wolff > Oritek

Is that right? Was hoping to get more thoughts from you on the Wolff cables. If not, no biggie. Cheers.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
DA, so, if I interpret what you are saying, you would rate these 3 cables as follows:

UR5 > Wolff > Oritek

Is that right? Was hoping to get more thoughts from you on the Wolff cables. If not, no biggie. Cheers.
I have made no comparisons directly between Grover and Wolff yet. Previous post was just briefly comparing X1 to Wolff Gold/Silver, giving the edge to Wolff for reasons given.

Will wait for UR6 to make any comparisons to Wolff, but even then it is David vs Golaith ($140 vs $475)
post #45 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
concede fine detail resolution to X1,

The reason I still give overall edge to UR5 is that it has rich natural sound with more body and bass extension, just allows you to relax and listen to the music, each person has thier priorities and so far Grover UR5 works best for me......UR6 soon.
"priorities"..so true. Relaxation is good. I rarely use music to relax though, we're all different; I want music to actively engage me, thrill me, freak me out-I like feeling goosebumps!

Some systems or components benefit from cables as tone controls others from greater transparency ("fine detail resolution"). The hearing it all of transparency works best here. Unfortunately transparency in one link can force the upgrade in other links. That can $uck!


Quote:
Originally Posted by euclid
the difference between the two is the imaging, X-1 coveys details as slightly more present and realistic.


the u5 is absolutely controlled throughout the frequency range with no glare, no sonic flaw to be found... but maybe too controlled to be interesting???

burn-in is a serious consideration here.

this u5 has not spent significant time in continuous burn-in,

for those comparing the X-1 to a U5 out of the box, it is not a fair comparison the grovers need time to open up.


between these two i prefer the x-1
People seem too distracted by the burn-in issue, among other secondary issues. Grover told me the UR needs about 10 hours (If I recall correctly?). I love HIFI+ magazine, a highly subjective mag I may add, but they occasionally dip a toe into the pool of science. Speakers benefit most from burn-in and so two pair of B&W's were measured in issue #23. The difference in frequency response was 1.98%.
Waiting for burn-in is an open door invitation for psychacoustics to enter. I'm not saying burn-in can't be there (I'm no authority on it), but psychacoustics are certainly also a real phenomenon and one I suspect some cable makers use.
I guess I'm a big, big fan of first impressions (and impatient?).


Quote:
Originally Posted by euclid
the result is the instrument imaging of the x-1 is clearer, details are more present and it gives the feeling of sound eminating from blackness. the u5 has the feeling of the sound together on a stage, there is less seperation, details are more distant but somehow vocal presentation is still VERY intimate, just as much as the x-1... i still believe the u5 genuinely sounds more natural, there is a very slight high frequency roll-off in comparison to the x-1 which might be attributed to increased capacitance on the grovers, i set the volume dial higher with the u5 to acheive my prefered listening level, the x-1 acheive the same volume on a lower dial setting and anything higher gets harsh and grainy, there is a fine line.

this is an upper frequency (and even general) harshness in the x-1. guitars can sound overly sythesized, even acoustic(???). snare drums are not realistic, and bass in gerneral (although impactful) is not very convincing. they are more fatiging and i have some ringing in my ears after a listening session.
What you could be hearing via the more transparent Oritek are weakness' elswhere in your system, as skullguise discovered via the same cable. Transparency isn't for everyone as DarkAngel has stated. I've mentioned before a friend who loves warm tube gear and thats totally cool. I love the separation of the X-1, it benefits even bad redbook CDs. But if I had the means I'd like a second radically different sounding system. A candle lit bubble bath of oils and rose petals audio system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
I have the Grover UR6 and will report more soon........
Not as good as UR7


Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
DA, so, if I interpret what you are saying, you would rate these 3 cables as follows:

UR5 > Wolff > Oritek
Me: Oritek X-1 > Wolff > UR5? Wolff > Oritek X-1 > UR5?

BTW markl and DarkAngel when are you two going to stop being audio imposters, get real, move up into higher fidelity and get turntables?
Digital stinks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: