[DrewVz]

Definitely depends on the iem.

With 7Hz Timeless, completely different story. Timeless with 37 would be a sweet pairing I think.

It is. It's incredible, frankly. I will post my review tonight.

But to your point, and in response to the original post about "everyone hearing differently", I 100% agree that cable synergy with different IEMs is important. However, I think that the cable influence on FR will be consistent and repeatable.

Yes, synergy is IEM dependent, but not the overall response. If a cable emphasizes the bass, it will do so for every IEM. You said you liked cable 38 with your H27, but cable 37 was too bright. Exactly my point. That is consistent with the characteristics of the two cables. Whether you PREFER that sound is irrelevant to how the cables influence the sound.

I think in this experiment, we really need to focus on the cable influence, independent of our personal preferences. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Tomm11]

It is. It's incredible, frankly. I will post my review tonight.

But to your point, and in response to the original post about "everyone hearing differently", I 100% agree that cable synergy with different IEMs is important. However, I think that the cable influence on FR will be consistent and repeatable.

To your

Agreed. I don't think it's FR related. I realize I'm writing in terms that seem like that's what I'm suggesting but I'm just describing what I hear, I don't literally mean that I think the FR is measurably different. I guess I should use qualifiers but I'm not a writer or reviewer.

Edit. You added to the post. Not sure I agree for a number of reasons but I'll leave it alone for now.

 

[chemosapien]

synergy is IEM dependent, but not the overall response. If a cable emphasizes the bass, it will do so for every IEM.

I disagree with this point, the internal impedance and the different materials used in both the connectors and internal iem wiring will effect the performance response.

 

[DrewVz]

I disagree with this point, the internal impedance and the different materials used in both the connectors and internal iem wiring will effect the performance response.

And I disagree with this point. I do not believe the materials of construction used in the IEM or fittings will affect how a cable performs when paired with that IEM. Copper is copper and silver is silver. I do not believe you can get copper to behave like silver (and vice-versa) in a cable just by changing the materials used in the IEM or its fittings.

 

[saldsald]

Yes, synergy is IEM dependent, but not the overall response. If a cable emphasizes the bass, it will do so for every IEM. You said you liked cable 38 with your H27, but cable 37 was too bright. Exactly my point. That is consistent with the characteristics of the two cables. Whether you PREFER that sound is irrelevant to how the cables influence the sound.

I think in this experiment, we really need to focus on the cable influence, independent of our personal preferences. But that's just my opinion.

I think we can in general profile a cable but they may behave differently sometimes like 20% of the time exactly due to the internal configuration such as impedance of the drives and their combined impedance and the response should not be considered as linear. That be said I think this should be left as an open discussion and we might eventually reach a final conclusion.

I disagree with this point, the internal impedance and the different materials used in both the connectors and internal iem wiring will effect the performance response.

Yup. I think so.

And I disagree with this point. I do not believe the materials of construction used in the IEM or fittings will affect how a cable performs when paired with that IEM. Copper is copper and silver is silver. I do not believe you can get copper to behave like silver (and vice-versa) in a cable just by changing the materials used in the IEM or its fittings.

There are many types of copper cables (and silver) anyway. I do have a few very bright sounding copper cables and a bassy silver cable. The thing is it is not very accurate to characterise a cable based solely on the material used IMHO. And for example, I have a custom 4 core pure silver cable and a 10 core made with the same cable core and they sound very different. (I do have quite a few cables to support my view)

 

[DrewVz]

Ok guys, here's my long-form review. Sorry for the verbosity, but this is the way I write. It's a long one. Enjoy (or skip). Your choice.


First and foremost, I want to sincerely thank Effect Audio for sending me these cables for testing. I'm not a published reviewer, but I do have a decent ear for how different cables can influence the sound of IEMs and headphones, so I am happy to give my opinion on these two cables, prototypes 37 and 38. For reference, my test system is as follows:

Laptop -> 24 bit/44100 Hz FLAC files -> Foobar2000 (no EQ) -> USB -> Denafrips Pontus 2 -> XLR out -> Burson Soloist 3XP -> XLR out -> Penon Totem XLR/4.4mm adapter -> Effect Cable -> Timeless IEM

Appearance-wise, the cables are solidly constructed and both use identical hardware for the connectors and strain reliefs. Even though it's not my personal style, the carbon-look trim seems genuine and adds a touch of class. I had no issues with connector fitment, nor any quality control issues such as poor solder joints or loose-fitting hardware. Very high quality fabrication all-around. I will list the one and only negative for the construction of these cables here: the ear-hook strain relief is not shaped well for my ears (and I assume others, as my ears are pretty normal). The ear-hook reinforcement extends quite far down the cable and is fairly stiff, so the cable actually rests against the backside edge of my ear and does not hang down properly BEHIND the ear. My recommendation would be to add a bit more curvature to the reinforcement and shorten it by 1/2 inch (12mm), or even slightly more, to allow the cable to hang more naturally behind the ear and not make contact with it.

Anyway, starting with cable 38, it appears to be of all-copper, 4-core construction, with two pairs on each left/right side comprised of slightly different strand composition. Not sure what the audible effect of this combination might be, but it's interesting anyways. From the sound signature, I do not believe there are any precious metals or graphene mixed into the construction. Just straight copper.

The FR characteristics of this cable seem to emphasize the lower registers and smooth out some of the detail, while maintaining a good portion of the treble energy. When paired with the Timeless, I found the bass to be somewhat boomy and loose, which distracted from my initial enjoyment. After getting acclimated to the sound, I was able to enjoy what the cable offered in terms of a smooth, broad sound, without being distracted by the tiny details or imaging focus in the music. More of a "chill" cable, there was no harshness or bite to the music, which suited some genres better than others. I could see this cable pairing very well with a Shuoer S12, which is a much sharper/brighter IEM compared to the Timeless. But with the Timeless, I found it a bit too much on the low end without a proper balance on the high end. I found the imaging to be substantially compromised (compared to cable 37) and some of my old favorites seemed to have a different feel to them, with reduced energy and less engagement. Overall, the experience was rather dull. I did not feel that this cable was a good pairing with the Timeless, as too much of the energy was taken out of the music and too much of the spatial cues and imaging effects were removed.

Moving on to cable 37, is silver colored, either of pure silver or a mix with other metals. My guess is that this is a silver-plated UPOCC cable without any additional precious metals or graphene added. I did not experience the normal "bite" or echo in the upper mids that I would hear from graphene, but I guess there could be some palladium or something in there to mellow out the sound and balance it, I can't be sure. But I'm guessing, though, based on the mass experiment that is being conducted, that this is a sub-$200 cable, which puts it out of the realm of having palladium construction. But I will say that if it is only an SPC cable, this is the finest SPC cable I've ever used.

I have been using a fairly thick, 7N UPOCC cable with graphene for several months with my Timeless and have been extremely (EXTREMELY) satisfied with the performance. The dynamics, clarity, soundstage, imaging, and bass quality have been outstanding in all regards. I thought it was the perfect pairing and really was not looking to change it at all. But when Effect Audio reached out to me to offer some test samples, I agreed with the expectation that it would only reinforce my feeling that my 7N/graphene cable was "perfect" and that I didn't need to look for anything better. Fast forward a month and here I am with cable 37.

When I first plugged it into my Timeless, I initially heard some good qualities, but also that there were some dynamics that seemed like they were "missing". Some of the "bite" and "echo" that I was accustomed to hearing with my 7N/graphene cable were just not there. I figured cable 37 was just another "boring" SPC cable that I would eventually dismiss and go back to my tried-and-true graphene mix after the review was over. Nope. Sorry. After a bit of burn-in... ok, let me stop here and address the burn-in topic. I have always been a believer in equipment burn-in. Amps, DACs, IEMs, phones, cables, etc. I swear I can hear a difference after 50/100/200 hours or whatever. And I will admit that I was prepared to hear some differences with the Effect Audio cables, but nope. After the initial 15-minute trial run of this cable, I do not feel that I have heard any difference after another 50 hours of burn-in. These cables seem very stable up to this point. I would say that I have about 80 hours on this particular cable and have not noticed any appreciable change.

Ok, back to the sound. Where do I start? The bass. The bass is tight, yet deep, and extremely well controlled. Quantity AND quality at the same time. I'm a huge fan of "quality" bass, but the QUANTITY surprised me. It is not a basshead cable, for sure, but if you can appreciate deep, TEXTURED bass... the kind that doesn't drown out the rest of the music or bleed into the mid-bass... then this is what you're looking for. The sub-bass still comes through, so the depth is still there, but it's just so well controlled that it doesn't distract you from the rest of the music.

Now the upper mid-bass, that's where I have some hesitation -- I find that the vocals in particular are a bit muted, but still clear, which is a slight paradox. I think I prefer some more "oomph" in the vocals to generate some emotion. What I hear from cable 37 are super-intelligible vocals, but lacking a bit in energy and emotion. Still, though, it's a small price to pay for the other benefits. The treble is well-extended and the spatial cues are INFINITELY present. The Timeless (being planar IEMs) create a big soundstage and offer good imaging, but this cable takes these technicalities "to 11". They are really at another level. Imaging is pinpoint and the resolution of the music as it travels across and around the soundstage is brought to a very high level. Incredibly smooth movement of the music within the 3D atmosphere, this is the best I've ever heard, from an IEM *OR* a headphone. I marvel at how my Timeless responds to this cable, particularly with ambient trance or melodic dubstep. If anyone is familiar with Phutureprimitive - Sub Conscious, I don't think you'll hear it produced any better than with this combination.

A couple of comments from my listening notes: balanced, clear (but not bright), intelligible vocals, texture, deep spatial awareness, improved tonality (compared to graphene cable), real-sounding, flat, accurate. Nothing stands out. There are no "biting" frequencies. The response is almost "boring" because it's so well-balanced and accurate. This is a Goldilox cable. Frankly, aside from a slight lack of "fun" and "dynamics", this is a PERFECT cable in my system.

I get the sense that these cables will sell for somewhere in the $150 USD range, which is quite frankly more than I would normally spend for a cable. Not that I can't appreciate high quality cables, and not that I can't hear the differences between them, but rather the value proposition is just not there for me. I guess as long as I don't know what I'm missing, then I'm satisfied with that I have. I have heard some very good improvements made by cables in the $50 range for both my headphones and IEMs, so that's where I generally draw the line.

But on the flip side, quite honestly, I feel tremendously grateful for having the opportunity to review these cables, because otherwise I would never have experienced the fabulous synergy between cable 37 and my beloved Timeless IEMs. It truly has taken them to another level of enjoyment, and I would 110% recommend this cable for anyone who is a Timeless-lover as I am. My previous pairing of a 7N Litz + graphene cable for my Timeless has been substantially beaten by this cable (37) from Effect Audio. I cannot recommend it enough as a match for the Timeless.

Thanks for reading and good listening. And thanks again to Effect Audio for this experience. It literally has changed the way I listen to my favorite music.

 

[Ufanco]

I guess that's one viewpoint. But if that's true, then these cable reviews are worthless.

Think about it.

Even with the difference IEM signature’s, I’m finding all these thoughts and reviews still very helpful.
With prototype 37, reading the overall reviews and feedback, most other tester hear a lot of the same sound I’m hearing.

Having different thoughts specially if someone using same iem’s is super helpful. There’s many well know members that post quality reviews currently testing these prototypes.
After reading reviews from the same popular reviewers, you get ideal of what they like. If I relate and enjoy the same quality as them, adds a big pro well researching new items.

 

[GiullianSN]

And I disagree with this point. I do not believe the materials of construction used in the IEM or fittings will affect how a cable performs when paired with that IEM. Copper is copper and silver is silver. I do not believe you can get copper to behave like silver (and vice-versa) in a cable just by changing the materials used in the IEM or its fittings.

Just have in mind that my comments were comparing 37/38 to stock cables.

Not all copper, silver or spc are constructed the same. We have size of the crystals, number of strands, size if the strands and so on. Copper usually has a warm characteristic, but if putting two different copper cables side by side, one will sound different from the other.

 

[chemosapien]

And I disagree with this point. I do not believe the materials of construction used in the IEM or fittings will affect how a cable performs when paired with that IEM. Copper is copper and silver is silver. I do not believe you can get copper to behave like silver (and vice-versa) in a cable just by changing the materials used in the IEM or its fittings.

Fwiw, I think you're reducing the electrical effects of the cables to an issue that's as simple as the kinetic effects of earpads, tips and filters

 

[JordonEA]

Hello guys! Hope that everyone is having an enjoyable time with our cables thus far!

fabulous synergy between cable 37 and my beloved Timeless IEMs.

Cheers to finding a great match with your Timeless

they appear to be made out of pure beauty with fittings from space future 3030

Can't share too much now but the actual parts are

- Jordon

 

[Wyville]

I guess that's one viewpoint. But if that's true, then these cable reviews are worthless.

Think about it.

There are a lot of factors involved. That is why it is so important to be transparent when writing down impressions by mentioning the specific pairings/setup, the music used and when possible give examples of how you hear things. That last one helps to give a reference frame for anyone comparing notes on how you use specific terminology.

For instance...
Listening to the 37 and 38 using the 64 Audio U18s and Shanling M8. My first impression was that the 38 was slightly warmer, giving a fuller more organic bass, whereas the 37 seemed like the bass was tighter and extended a little further down.

In this case I can say both that the 37 provided a "deeper low end" (more extended) and that the 38 "emphasised the lows" (making them fuller).

These aren't my exact first impressions yet, it is merely meant to illustrate how terminology can be interpreted differently. Ideally, a reviewer should point to changes in specific frequencies, but few people fully understand frequencies and their interrelationship within a signature like @EffectAudio does. (He tried to teach me, but I'm a lousy student. )

Anyway, general first impressions based on the 32, 37 and 38 is that I think the 37 and 38 are excellent cables that seem to embody what I have always loved about Effect Audio's iconic cables such as Ares II and Eros II. I am not sure if these will be in a similar price range, but they feel to me like they could well end up as my first recommendation to anyone looking to replace a stock cable. So far the 37 seems to pair very well with the U18s (Apex = m15) and the 38 with the Empire Ears Phantom. But I do need to switch them around a bit more for detailed impressions.

The 32 has not yet resonated with me and so I have spent much less time with it. More on that cable later.

 

[GiullianSN]

There are a lot of factors involved. That is why it is so important to be transparent when writing down impressions by mentioning the specific pairings/setup, the music used and when possible give examples of how you hear things. That last one helps to give a reference frame for anyone comparing notes on how you use specific terminology.

For instance...
Listening to the 37 and 38 using the 64 Audio U18s and Shanling M8. My first impression was that the 38 was slightly warmer, giving a fuller more organic bass, whereas the 37 seemed like the bass was tighter and extended a little further down.

In this case I can say both that the 37 provided a "deeper low end" (more extended) and that the 38 "emphasised the lows" (making them fuller).

These aren't my exact first impressions yet, it is merely meant to illustrate how terminology can be interpreted differently. Ideally, a reviewer should point to changes in specific frequencies, but few people fully understand frequencies and their interrelationship within a signature like @EffectAudio does. (He tried to teach me, but I'm a lousy student. )

Anyway, general first impressions based on the 32, 37 and 38 is that I think the 37 and 38 are excellent cables that seem to embody what I have always loved about Effect Audio's iconic cables such as Ares II and Eros II. I am not sure if these will be in a similar price range, but they feel to me like they could well end up as my first recommendation to anyone looking to replace a stock cable. So far the 37 seems to pair very well with the U18s (Apex = m15) and the 38 with the Empire Ears Phantom. But I do need to switch them around a bit more for detailed impressions.

The 32 has not yet resonated with me and so I have spent much less time with it. More on that cable later.

Your U18t + 37 sounds about what I can get here on 12t. In my words is “like adding a DD” to 12t. Same same but different.

 

[Deferenz]

Well the DHL van finally parked up outside my house and brought me a little gift

i have P37 and P38. I going to start the burn in process right now and check on the sound as it goes along.

 

[Deferenz]

Both cables are still burning away, but I thought I’d have a quick listen just to get a flavour of what they are like. I have to bear in mind that they are currently attached to different earphones, adapters and sources ( I needed to really mix and match gear to try and accommodate two 4.4mm terminations at the same time), and so I’m not in a position to give anything other than my quick thoughts on each cable.

P37 - words that come to mind are; clarity, bright, sparkly, detail, clean.

P38 - for this one I’d say; warmth, fullness, easy listening and there seems a 3D element to it.

When I do my actual listening both will be using the exact same set up and so I will be in a much better position to understand the difference between both cables. So far they have been playing for around 30 hours. I ideally want to give them another two days to burn.

 

[Ufanco]

Copper prototype 38 first impressions.
My initial thoughts is that it highlights the bass more than prototype 37. Using it with my system added too much of a bassy sound. This came across a tad boomy and with too much presence in the low end, my system is already on the warm side and this cable highlighted that.

The midrange was not as smooth and forward compared to 37. The high end rolled off gave more of smooth more mellow sound than a edgy sound.

Slightly better than average soundstage with good depth to it.

It feel they would be a very good choice if using a bright sounding iem or if you’re more a bass head.

The construction itself is along same level as prototype 37 except for the chin clinch. The wire gauge is mixed and it doesn’t stay in place. Seems a easy fix but in the current state I would be disappointed. Hopefully they addressed it if this becomes a production model.

Please understand these are just my initial thoughts with using this cable with the mest mkii and tubes. I’m not saying it’s a bad sounding cable it’s just doesn’t have the synergy that works the best with my system, so please take that into account.

I also really enjoyed prototype 37 and that could account towards my initial impression of prototype 38. In hindsight I should have listened to some other cables before going directly from prototype 37 to 38.


Going continue to burn it in more and post additional thoughts once it’s closer to 100 hours.