Equinox detail level

Re: Equinox detail level

Absolutely not!

With the equinox I started hearing additional detail in some of my favorite (familiar) CD's. I would listen and say to myself, "Hey, I never heard that before...". Both the treble range and the bass expanded, the treble more than the bass. It was worth the upgrade to me.

My ears are probably not the best, so if *I* could easily hear improvements, then others should too!

I agree!! In fact, I had both the Equinox and the first generation Cardas HD600 cable and listened to them both. They were both excellent cables and miles ahead of the stock one, but I decided to keep the Equinox because of the detail and forwardness that my 45 year old ears heard.

Equinox

Musical is the best description of this outstanding cable. The Equinox was a major upgrade over the stock cable and a Clou Blue I owned for nearly a year.
I find the Equinox to be neutral and clear sounding. This cable is much more comfortable to wear. Good build quality.

Musical is a stupid word and makes no sense, but it does have a forgiving nature, it tames harshenss of sources and amps. Detail is brought out without a grating nature behind it thus makes the sound easier to listen to, there's all kinds of good stuff this cable improves on, use the search feature to get more indepth impressions.

[QUOTE]Musical is a stupid word and makes no sense

Well perhaps “musical” is an overused generalization. I find myself using that term to describe an item that makes music reproduction pleasing to my ear. My hearing kind of sucks and I don’t have much skill putting words together. So I’m going to use the word “musical” to describe stuff that works for me.

I like to think that no one's opinion is stupid ; uninformed or ill-judged perhaps, but not stupid.

The definition of musical is, "having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music". I have used this word before to describe components in an attempt to convey the sense that it allowed the analog signal to be transmitted in a fashion that sounded like music. Why? Because I have actually used components that made the sound harsh and unsatisfying i.e. not very musical to my ears.

I used to concur with the idea that "musical" and "emotional" were really stupid ways to describe audio.

But lately I've sort of made a turn-around in my opinion. Here's my rationale:

A good musician who makes beautiful music has a particular musical sound in his/her head when playing music. Believe me, I know from experience that that's often the difference between good and great musicians; the great ones know how to hear better IN their head. Some musicians can move you emotionally JUST by the quality of their sound. I'm thinking of violinists like Heifetz. He'll mesmerize you with that intense sound alone, never mind phrasing and all those other "musical" things. So, "musical" can be applied to just a single sound. An unstructured sound like breaking of glass is noise. When a musician shapes sound into something aesthetically pleasing, it's music.

If that is true, then audio gear that keeps that structure intact is in my book, "musical". I've heard audio gear that utterly destroys the emotion that the musician was trying to convey. It might do it by having harsh treble peaks, recessed mids, whatever.

So in theory, "musicality" should be equal to "neutrality", since ideally, we'll hear all the emotion the music have to offer without adding or subtracting anything.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect recording. That's why we have to play around with colourations in headphones/amps/sources/cables to try to re-create the emotion as much as possible.

That's just the way I see it.