AC1
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2001
- Posts
- 795
- Likes
- 11
The digital cable is one of the last cables changed when I decided to ditch thicker non-flexible cables. The x60 came in as a very interesting possibility due to its heritage as the follow up to the Kimber D60 and its design as being very flexible along with being fitted with the bnc/rca adapter combo. However, there have been many varying opinions on the sound quality of this cable, some people have found it to be the best they have heard, but most seem to believe it competes in the same level as the Acoustic Zen MC2 which I have been using for roughly a year now.
Some background info about what my dac situation has been which you will see comes into play concerning the comparison. I decided to take my Mensa modded DI/O further by enlisting the help of Igor from K Works (from the Empowered cord I have compared) to see what he could do with it (dac and PS), but before I sent it to him I did have the x60 for about 2wks to use and compare. In the meantime I was using a backup Theta Pro Basic dac, which ended up being for a decent amount of time due it first having to have the cable changed by Bolder then going to Igor. What came back is a DI/O that has a substantial amount of more information along with being fuller, weightier, where the Mensa DI/O could sound a bit thin compared to other dacs (BTW Igor liked the performance of the Mensa DI/O and after his work believes it competes with the top digital he has heard). Having the new DI/O really allowed the difference between the two cables to be heard.
There are some main differences between the x60 and MC2 with one being the tonality of the two cables.
The MC2, maybe not surprisingly so, has a “voice” that is somewhat similar to the Silver Ref IIs ics which I have used previously to the Bogdans. One thing in comparison of the ics I found was the AZs soft mid range to mid bass. In much the same effect the MC2 has the same characteristics compared to the x60. The mid/mid-bass can sound soft, lacking in dynamics. This gives male vocals far less weight, fullness making it sound diminished less energetic. A good test of the softness was on the Burmester III test cd where the last track involves Chinese drums. The low end bass impact was there with both cables, however it was easy to hear how soft some of the less deeper drums sounded.
On the other end, the x60 diminishes the hf energy compared to the MC2. The MC2 imparts a thinner edgy high end. To me, this sounds very “digital” where the high end is a bit more detached and energetic than it should be. Though I find that the MC2 does give some more energy up top than the x60, the overall detail of the high end is still better with the x60, where little cymbal brushes is much more apparent with the x60. The x60 integrates the hf much better where I do not feel that there is something that sticks out. However, while I do not find the x60 lacking extension, it is somewhat on the civil side, maybe a bit too much so for my system, just a bit more energy would be good to liven it up.
The other big difference between these two cables is the level of detail they extract. Having the new DI/O makes this become much more apparent. With the x60 there is simply more information coming through. The x60 gives a sense a fullness, body, and presence where it makes the MC2 sound flat and vague. Switching between the two can cause the feeling of where did everything go with MC2. Across the spectrum there is more just more detail with the x60. Note decay does not end as quickly. The subtle textures of sound are made more apparent. Ambient, spatial detail is greater with the x60. On the MA Recording cds, where spatial detail is abundant, the reverb path of the instruments is more apparent with the x60, with the MC2 there is a beginning and an end but the path traveled to get there is not very distinct. The x60 with higher amount of spatial information also extends out the size of the room, giving a feeling of more expansiveness, in contrast to the MC2 which can sound just a bit more confined, closed in. Along that line, the x60 does have more depth to the placement of instruments and roughly the same width.
I will have to note that the difference in detail was not very apparent on the regular Mensa I had or with the Theta Pro Basic dac. With the Mensa before I did find the tonality differences, and that the x60 had a somewhat fuller midrange which gave a bit more detail, but not to nearly the degree which it happens now, where I feel the MC2 diminishes what is there. With the even less resolute Theta dac, it was even more difficult to tell apart, only some of the tonality traits distinguished the two. I am glad I waited to compare the two with the new DI/O since it was much more of an interesting experience than I would have imagined, showing how the component, cable interaction can be an important factor.
Some background info about what my dac situation has been which you will see comes into play concerning the comparison. I decided to take my Mensa modded DI/O further by enlisting the help of Igor from K Works (from the Empowered cord I have compared) to see what he could do with it (dac and PS), but before I sent it to him I did have the x60 for about 2wks to use and compare. In the meantime I was using a backup Theta Pro Basic dac, which ended up being for a decent amount of time due it first having to have the cable changed by Bolder then going to Igor. What came back is a DI/O that has a substantial amount of more information along with being fuller, weightier, where the Mensa DI/O could sound a bit thin compared to other dacs (BTW Igor liked the performance of the Mensa DI/O and after his work believes it competes with the top digital he has heard). Having the new DI/O really allowed the difference between the two cables to be heard.
There are some main differences between the x60 and MC2 with one being the tonality of the two cables.
The MC2, maybe not surprisingly so, has a “voice” that is somewhat similar to the Silver Ref IIs ics which I have used previously to the Bogdans. One thing in comparison of the ics I found was the AZs soft mid range to mid bass. In much the same effect the MC2 has the same characteristics compared to the x60. The mid/mid-bass can sound soft, lacking in dynamics. This gives male vocals far less weight, fullness making it sound diminished less energetic. A good test of the softness was on the Burmester III test cd where the last track involves Chinese drums. The low end bass impact was there with both cables, however it was easy to hear how soft some of the less deeper drums sounded.
On the other end, the x60 diminishes the hf energy compared to the MC2. The MC2 imparts a thinner edgy high end. To me, this sounds very “digital” where the high end is a bit more detached and energetic than it should be. Though I find that the MC2 does give some more energy up top than the x60, the overall detail of the high end is still better with the x60, where little cymbal brushes is much more apparent with the x60. The x60 integrates the hf much better where I do not feel that there is something that sticks out. However, while I do not find the x60 lacking extension, it is somewhat on the civil side, maybe a bit too much so for my system, just a bit more energy would be good to liven it up.
The other big difference between these two cables is the level of detail they extract. Having the new DI/O makes this become much more apparent. With the x60 there is simply more information coming through. The x60 gives a sense a fullness, body, and presence where it makes the MC2 sound flat and vague. Switching between the two can cause the feeling of where did everything go with MC2. Across the spectrum there is more just more detail with the x60. Note decay does not end as quickly. The subtle textures of sound are made more apparent. Ambient, spatial detail is greater with the x60. On the MA Recording cds, where spatial detail is abundant, the reverb path of the instruments is more apparent with the x60, with the MC2 there is a beginning and an end but the path traveled to get there is not very distinct. The x60 with higher amount of spatial information also extends out the size of the room, giving a feeling of more expansiveness, in contrast to the MC2 which can sound just a bit more confined, closed in. Along that line, the x60 does have more depth to the placement of instruments and roughly the same width.
I will have to note that the difference in detail was not very apparent on the regular Mensa I had or with the Theta Pro Basic dac. With the Mensa before I did find the tonality differences, and that the x60 had a somewhat fuller midrange which gave a bit more detail, but not to nearly the degree which it happens now, where I feel the MC2 diminishes what is there. With the even less resolute Theta dac, it was even more difficult to tell apart, only some of the tonality traits distinguished the two. I am glad I waited to compare the two with the new DI/O since it was much more of an interesting experience than I would have imagined, showing how the component, cable interaction can be an important factor.
