Originally Posted by KenW
Gotcha both...I'm a child of the 8-track.
OK...there were two LPs that I willfully aquired as desired items way back in 1972 (?). A double LP Elvis Greatest Hits and The Osmonds-Homemade
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
I find analyzing/reviewing cables a labor and takes away from my real goal, music!
Oh yeah. I'd be OK with not mentioning X-1 or UR again for a good long while.
taking an internet break.
But out of respect
here we go again...(one last time?).Pride, Predjudice and Preference?
Originally Posted by markl
Repeat after me-- "I am not my gear, I am not my gear..."
It seems many of us are guilty to some degree of idealizing the sounds of our systems when asked to publicly describe their qualities. (eyeteeth slowly raises hand with head hung a little, eyes averted, and sneaks a peek for other raised hands). They can become extensions of ourselves, reflections of ourselves, the sonic, or even for some aesthetic, attributes of a piece of audio hardware. We associate. Just as we may have difficulty in seeing ourselves very truthfully, something that varies greatly from individual to individual, truthfully describing a piece of gear may be less accurate than hoped for by others. Nearly everyone's latest whatever is seriously fantastic. It's human nature.
(Please pardon the didactic tone!
), (Also, not sure if Mark intended the meaning to be taken as far I as I took it
Originally Posted by Wodgy
(great Pavlovian marketing there, BTW).
Witness the bell ring and the salivating on cue. It's also something like the gambler who is certain one more pull on the one-armed-bandit, who's jackpot keeps increasing, just may be the winner.
Originally Posted by jp11801
Damn it damn it damn it, this sounds like the cable for me
I went from the UR5 to the X-1 and now have some old as the hill transparent music link plus cables bit the UR6 sounds like a winner.
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
Pulling out my notepad from previous cables/sessions I heard further improvements in detail resolution and soundstage presentation. I think ET should hear UR6 as I no longer will concede that X1 is slightly more detailed, I feel UR6 has matched it there and added to its advantage in soundstage presentaion which is really impressive now........perhaps MonkeyMan can comment further?
The tone balance is slightly different now, a bit less full and warm toned like UR5, it now has a faster more agile bounce to its step, a touch more treble energy and extension. If you made a hybrid of X1 and UR5 sounds the result would be UR6, as usual not sure what changes Grover has made to acheive this. Still has natural relaxed detailed presention that makes almost any type of music sound its best........I have many rock recordings with typical grain and glare sound and UR5/UR6 can play these more cleanly/smoothly than Oritek or Wolff, yet still magically match these great cables in detail resolution and soundstage, somehow it minimizes CD sound flaws best.
This is the quality that keeps me a Grover fan.......the universal ability to make any type of recording sound its best while minimizing its flaws. Vast majority of my music collection is your average rock recordings so my primary goal to to make these sound as good overall as possible.
I've heard UR2, 3, 4 & 5 and well I just don't believe the press anymore.
Um...OK...it could be true. Anything is possible. Do I dare miss out on the possibility?
I don't pay much heed to burn-in but I burned-in the UR5 for 200 hours! I distinctly remember my reaction to hearing them and saying to myself "hey! Very, very nice". I may have had lower expectations than were obviously justified. Very, very nice, refined also conventional sounding as in separation and soundstaging on par with other good cables.
My favourite Grover poster is Seagoat and my favourite post is this one
. I love these quotes for the entertainment value:"UR 5 - Unlike anything that has gone before" "The UR 5 is the first truly linear sounding cable." "This cable captures the best of all of Grover's prior cable and doubles, triples them." "as close to the master recording as possible without any highlight or defects in the sound." "There is no competition for sound this good." "They are that good!!!" "Ladies and Gentlemen let's have a warm welcome for that latest music sensation...The Upgrades!""that good!!!"
Sheesh, that newish phrase has become very popular of late and is really ready for an early retirement; it's used in many reviews including our X-1/X-2 review. Yuck!
I find quite a gap between the written descriptions and the reality. Each new version is just divine. The description of pure perfection. Everything anyone could ever want in a cable. All signals that pass through shall be blessed and rendered whole again, Amen.
It'll only be with the arrival of the following upgrade that weakness' heard in the previous incarnation are admitted to: "UR 4 had really punchy bass and very sweet revealing highs but some covered mids; however, it was unbalanced sounding, not linear"
But my praise for the X-1 must look just as over the top to the Grover crew...maybe? For some time I was of the opinion that this was a problem in many cable reviews-hyperbole. I tried to avoid this, avoid use of the standard cliche's, jargon, wording, phrases, and descriptions that were often interchangeable between any two very good cables.
I don't know if I succeeded or not but I tried to keep it simple, keep it real. Focusing solely on what was apparent, detail, separation & imaging, a result, I thought, of greater transparency. I tried to remain relatable through the mention of specific music, which CD sounded like what, specifically how it changed before and after. A just-the-facts, down to Earth and not a pie-in-the-sky, creative writing depiction of a cable. Maybe I failed?
It's funny that over the past few weeks I'd received a number of emails and PMs from a variety of people from various forums, not related to cables but other components, and every person felt compelled to inform me of some small previously unknown company who's cable, preamp or whatever killed that of a well known expensive competitor! Insane.
I don't think I believe anyone I don't know well and I don't know why anyone would believe me either. I certainly don't believe the Grover group; but at least I have first hand experiences there.
So what's going on? Inadequate journalistic skills?
The excesses inherent to (irrational?) exuberance?
The same thing as what has someone declare Mr.X the greatest singer ever?
OK, I'm easy, I'll go with that.
Is any of this really very important?
No, not at all.
Writing is fun and I just felt like making a point.
Originally Posted by euclid
darkangel i agree about the u5 with rock recordings. the x-1 have been really great on instumental jazz, more fun than the grover u5, horns sound more articulate and more spacious, with slightly better seperation.
however with rock such as Tool the x-1 sound unlistenable in my system,
with the x-1 the instruments sound infront of vocals. on u5 vocals are in front and details further behind...
Wow that's rather miraculous! A cable that can distinguish whether it's playing jazz or rock, vocals or instruments and be designed to present the information based on genre and type of instrument no less! Holy smoke! I had no idea this was possible. DarkAngel said it best "magically
match". You're correct, you two are on the "same page"...but a page seemingly pulled from a Harry Potter book.
BTW Tool sounds fine
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
There has been some discussion here that the real goal of cables is to be completely transparant as possible to music signal, which sounds logical but in reality may not ultimately be satisfying for everyone.
I have local friends with 50K+ systems that sound great if you play the handful of acceptable audiophile CDs (Dianna Krall, Jennifer Warren, Ricky Lee Jones, etc) but put on "average" rock CD like Rolling Stones, AC/DC and it sounds terrible magnifying every small recording flaw, can't even make it through one song, painful experience........just an observation that ultimate resolution and transparancy may not be a satisfying goal for everyone
Maybe they should downgrade to better equipment?
A transparent cable (if there truly were such a thing) would have you hear a component's
interpretation of the recorded media. A transparent cable would have nothing added, nothing subtracted. Don't like the sound? Blame the material, amp, source, transducers, room. Oh right, the Grover cables are able to distinguish between a CD's information, the difference between a virtue and a flaw. They're capable of supressing the high frequencies on a poorly mastered CD but let those frequencies shine through when a well mastered CD is detected. How come my Grovers were not, apparently, the greatest advance in the history of recorded music?
OK, back to reality:The same creativity used in describing the loftiness of one's own system does appear to get employed in describing the faults of other systems, with both accounts being something less than accurately portrayed.
What does transparency mean to me? Or rather, what is it I expect from transparency? What has been my experience so far with the relative degree of which I have so far? I don't own any "Dianna Krall, Jennifer Warren, Ricky Lee Jones" but DarkAngel and I have much in common as the
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
Vast majority of my music collection is your average rock recordings so my primary goal to to make these sound as good overall as possible.
It's hardly the horror of looking at what's next to you after a drunken one night stand, (not that I've done much of that
), that it is being mischaracterised as.
In my X-1 review I wrote of my rediscovery
of The Verve's Urban Hymns, specifically of what I had always thought of to be a very sub-par sonic experience and it's significant elevation via an increase in system transparency. The Oritek X-1 was a great aid in achieving this increase. I honestly felt that my system had passed through a threshold and moved beyond ordinary transparency. It was like being able to see farther and more clearly in the dark. I had already been enjoying the pleasures of this path as DarkAngel may recall when I alone, in all I've ever read, declared black metal's Mayhem's De Mysteriis Dom Satanas CD not the miscreant recording everyone had described it as. Far from it, I can raise the roof with it painfree. Transparency allows this I believe.
Of course as a "grumbler" I do my fair share of complaining about the state of many masterings. Who doesn't? The whole raison d’être of the Steve Hoffman forum
is the discussion of such.
My hope is to unlock as much musical enjoyment as possible; through transparency to dig up every ounce of bass information on a lean recording, every iota of musical value without creative editorial interpretation.
I occasionally pick up a CD as compensation for my darling who must hear so much of my music. As she is much more pop/radio oriented than I, I brought her Coldplay's X&Y a few days ago. I was well aware of but didn't know Coldplay at all. It was it's second spin on the following day that sucked me in. I quickly enjoyed this CD very much, especially tracks #5 and #7. From a sonic perspective the CD seems typical of modern "average rock recordings", close miked, dynamically compressed, the crescendo to climax of a chorus doesn't really increase in level but gets crowded instead. Did it detrack from my enjoyment? No. I must have looked like a monk in happy meditation such was my pleasure between the speakers. (I was lost in thoughts of how this sounded like an alternate universe U2 that had long before not taken the road of self-parody). Sure you hear the flaws but put them aside and bask in the flood of all the good stuff, the greater good.
Originally Posted by DarkAngel
it sounds terrible magnifying every small recording flaw, can't even make it through one song, painful experience
Utter nonsense, based upon the sounds of transparency here. Maybe high resolution can be presented differently in different systems. The presentation here is just a little warm and laidback, full scale and rich with an abundance of texture, certainly nothing is thrown in your face. But all is most certainly present. Did the engineers intend for me to hear the big shift in miking (or whatever)/ lateral expansion at the 46 second mark of track #2? Don't know, don't care, it sounds cool to me.
I hope this corrects the false assertion that transparency is an obstacle to enjoyment. So far it has been my experience to be the most rewarding path.
Also it's not my intension to piss off my fellow members in this thread. I like my fellow members. We may have a big difference of opinion on this issue but surely we are on the same page with many other things, some much more important.
Now I think I can take my break.