LCD-2 and LCD-3 Owners - which aftermarket cable do you use?
Aug 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM Post #751 of 2,398
 
When my 3 meter headphone cable from Q Audio Cables arrived in the mail and I opened it I was surprised to find just how lightweight the cable felt as I held it in my hand.  Lighter and more flexible than any cable I have ever experienced.  Replacing the Audeze stock cable with the Q proved to be the ultimate in ergonomic enhancement. No longer did I feel like I had a small hose running from my head down my chest through the air to my rig like a cable on a suspension bridge.  Well, at least thats what the stock cable felt like once I replaced it with the softer more flexible Q cable.  Ergonomically the Q disappears when you use it. You simply do not realize it is on your LCD's while you are listening to music.  You can place it anyway you want and it will stay there and not become an insistent intrusion on your listening experience.  The Q is worth it just for that pleasure alone. 
 
But pleasant and practical ergonomics is just a side benefit that comes with the cable, the real value is the impressive sonic performance of the cable itself.   I was not expecting any noticeable improvement in sonic quality with my LCDs by switching out the stock cable and I was very surprised and impressed when I did. The first attribute that I noticed right away was the overall CLARITY of the signal the Q delivers to the LCD.  Upgrading to the Q cable allows the LCD to be more of what it already is. The stock cable is definitely holding the LCD back acting in many ways as a filter on the signal.  After 2 days of burn in and then 3 more days of comparison I found the stock cable to be smearing the finer detail within the music. The stock cable was adding a small amount of congestion and a bit of hardness to the more dynamic passages, especially in the upper region, low level detail was slightly soft and a bit more defocused, and a veil was impeding the overall transparency of the music.  
 
The artifacts created by the stock cable are not so readily apparent until you insert the Q into the sonic equation. With the Q there is more transparency to the music at hand, everything in the sonic presentation is cleaner and clearer and adds up to the one word that kept coming to mind, Clarity.   This clarity brings improvements in all areas of reproduction for the LCD to prove its Ortho stuff.  Detail is more precise and has better separation but it is not analytical, edged or artificial, it's simply clean, transparent, smooth and cohesive.  Because the detail is more clearly defined and presented, smaller, softer low level inner detail gives the soundfield a deeper sense of depth and dimension, this creates better definition overall in the context of the soundfield and leads to better imaging.  Rendering of the smallest detail is a delight with the Q, they are exciting to discover, bringing you closer to the music. One of the improvements the r.2 has over the r.1 I feel is its ability to better layer the detail in the soundfield and it does an even finer job using the Q cable. It is even easier to hear into the space of the sound field in a recording.  
 
 The Q opens up the soundstage, the clarity of the detail allows for more air around the instruments, there is more of a palpable feel to them and an increased realism.  There is more precise tighter imaging and more ambient detail.  It is as if the Q is simply getting out of the way of the overall signal and letting it pass unimpeded whereas the stock cable is to some degree adding a filtering signature to the signal.
 
The Q exhibits excellent control over dynamic passages, transients hold together with no break up or restriction, whereas with the stock cable congestion seems to be the outcome of some type of dynamic restriction, more often in the upper region.  High energy transients with the Q are portrayed with a clean effortless deliverance.  Cymbals have a shimmer that is clean, solid, and finely detailed adding to their realism,  whereas the stock cable portrays a softer less defined type of detail which for me robs a little bit of the excitement and realism.  There is no sense of the slight smearing of the detail with the Q as there seems to be with the stock cable.  Chimes, shakers, bells, cymbals are all more realistic and vibrant, again due to that little bit of extra detail coming through.
 
With the Q I found instruments such as drums to have more dynamic impact. More tightness to their surface, this being the outcome of the very clarity of detail the Q allows the LCD's to receive.  The black background in which the musical setting is presented seems blacker now with the Q than the stock cable. Voices come out of the background and seem more realistic and solid.  Piano is rendered with clearer transients and cleaner harmonic detail and control.  Bass has a bit more dynamic definition and palpable sense than the stock cable with a bit more detail and a touch less bloat. Some may think the less bloat description to mean less bass. It does not. The bass is not negatively effected, if anything it is a bit cleaner.  
 
The LCD's are even more exciting now with the Q cable than they were before with the stock cable.   Some of the differences I experienced between the two cables can are noticeable right away and some are less noticeable but become more apparent and more finely substantial as you listen and experience the Q cable with time.  For instance the clarity of the cable is noticeable right way, it leads to the discovery of all the other benefits the Q has to offer the LCD.  Increased transparency, a more open soundstage, better layering, more realism from the cleaner less veiled more finely defined detail. It is a discovery of better, cleaner, signal transfer that continues on as you play more of the tunes you are familiar with and with each tune your appreciation will grow.  That is what happened with me. The more I listen the more the smallest improvements became apparent and began to add up into a more exciting experience. 
 
With the Q Cable you get better ergonomics over the stock cable and you will extend the LCD experience to another level of refinement.
 
 
 
Aug 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM Post #752 of 2,398
I'm going to order my LCD-2 and Apex Peak/Volcano amp this week. Is silver or copper better for a hybrid amp? I don't mind paying the extra for silver if it makes a big difference.

At the start of this thread there is a lot of mention about the Silver ALO cable and Moon Silver Dragon cable but now in the last 10 pages all I read is talk about the Q Audio copper cable. Has anyone listened to all 3 cables? It just seems like people are trying to sell the Q Audio cable and I haven't read any comparisons.
 
 
Aug 13, 2011 at 10:24 PM Post #753 of 2,398
    Quote:
*SNIP*
 
With the Q Cable you get better ergonomics over the stock cable and you will extend the LCD experience to another level of refinement.

I could have told you that! 
biggrin.gif

 
beerchug.gif

-HK sends
 
 
 
Aug 13, 2011 at 11:56 PM Post #754 of 2,398
Thanks WA for the thorough review.  The Norse cable has been excellent for me but it's a cable that I definitely has a tendency to snake around itself.  
If anyone has experience with the Q cable and Norse cable let me know your experience.  
 
Quote:
You simply do not realize it is on your LCD's while you are listening to music.  You can place it anyway you want and it will stay there and not become an insistent intrusion on your listening experience.  The Q is worth it just for that pleasure alone. 

 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:12 AM Post #755 of 2,398
I heard it was light but was also surprised when I received mine at how light and flexible it is. The best description is it is like thin round shoelaces which I know someone else reference to earlier. As far as sound goes, I just plugged it in and listened and didnt worry about if it made a difference or not. Thanks for the review WA, now I know the improvement I received since I didnt really do much of a comparison.
tongue_smile.gif

 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:31 AM Post #756 of 2,398

 
Quote:
Thanks WA for the thorough review.  The Norse cable has been excellent for me but it's a cable that I definitely has a tendency to snake around itself.  
If anyone has experience with the Q cable and Norse cable let me know your experience.  
 



Yup, I extensively auditioned the Norse cable (both 4 and 8 conductor) before buying the Q cable.  I have Rev.1 LCD-2's and I appreciated the increase in resolution that both Norse cables and Q cables seem to provide.  I can tell you that both were an improvement over the stock cable, since I listened to the Norse for a week, then went back, then listened to the 8-conductor for a week and went back then tried comparing the 4 vs. 8 for while, and finally got the Q for a week and went back to stock again for a week.  No side-by-side for Norse vs. Q, but not much time in between.  Nevertheless, i don't share WA's skill at exactly remembering sound signatures, so you'll have to take my comments with the appropriate grains of salt.
 
I found the Q especially notable for its clarity in the treble regions and upper midrange (especially on trumpet and flute and instruments with a brassy edge, where it was especially faithful, even delivering that slightly shrieky sound of the piccolo).  Mozart's Horn Concertos have never sounded better on my rig with the LCD-2's.  By contrast, I slightly preferred the Norse 8-conductor on the bass, especially deep organ notes and tympani (think, for instance, the storm sequence in Britten's "Peter Grimes").  I felt the Norse had more impact, but the Q may have had more detail/clarity in the bass.  Again, texture-wise, I felt the harmonics of a double bassoon were relayed with more fidelity by the Q, but the bass guitar had slightly more "drive" with the Norse.  So the bass was a wash for me, with points awarded to all players and no clear win.  In the midrange, I love the LCD-2's for vocals, and here I felt that the Q's were a little more faithful to what I remembered some of my favorite singers sounding like in concert, that is, the tonality of their voices was just right.  I think the Norse were equally good, and clearly much better than the stock cable.  I would have been quite happy with the Norse and never looked back, if Keven (kwkarth) hadn't talked me into trying the Q's.
 
The Q's have it all over the Norse for comfort.  In the end, that's what decided me.  I don't think the SQ was different enough for me to decide on that basis, and if I already owned the Norse, I certainly wouldn't abandon them for the Q's, just because of a slightly different presentation.  They're really remarkable on their own.
 
Hope this helps.
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:40 AM Post #757 of 2,398


Quote:
 
<clip>
But pleasant and practical ergonomics is just a side benefit that comes with the cable, the real value is the impressive sonic performance of the cable itself.   I was not expecting any noticeable improvement in sonic quality with my LCDs by switching out the stock cable and I was very surprised and impressed when I did. The first attribute that I noticed right away was the overall CLARITY of the signal the Q delivers to the LCD.  Upgrading to the Q cable allows the LCD to be more of what it already is. The stock cable is definitely holding the LCD back acting in many ways as a filter on the signal.  <clip>
 
With the Q Cable you get better ergonomics over the stock cable and you will extend the LCD experience to another level of refinement.
 
 


Thanks WA for your thorough evaluation.  I appreciate all the time you put into listening and detecting the differences in such detail.  Kudos!
 
I agree, I was not expecting any real difference either.  I'm not much of a cable believer, having done a lot of DIY experimentation with different types.  So I was fairly surprised (and horrified) to find that I strongly preferred the Q cables after a week of use, when i went back to the stock cables for a while, just to see if I could really tell the difference.  Boy did I.  But I certainly don't have the words for it as you so clearly laid them out above.
 
Nice job!
 
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:43 AM Post #758 of 2,398
Awesome DE, thanks for the comparisons, I appreciate it, I haven't gone thru this entire thread yet.  As I was telling WA, maybe the Q will be a stocking stuffer for me down the road but keeping the Norse for the meantime.  Norse gets the job done nicely.  
 
Quote:
Yup, I extensively auditioned the Norse cable (both 4 and 8 conductor) before buying the Q cable.  I have Rev.1 LCD-2's and I appreciated the increase in resolution that both Norse cables and Q cables seem to provide.  I can tell you that both were an improvement over the stock cable, since I listened to the Norse for a week, then went back, then listened to the 8-conductor for a week and went back then tried comparing the 4 vs. 8 for while, and finally got the Q for a week and went back to stock again for a week.  No side-by-side for Norse vs. Q, but not much time in between.  Nevertheless, i don't share WA's skill at exactly remembering sound signatures, so you'll have to take my comments with the appropriate grains of salt.
 
I found the Q especially notable for its clarity in the treble regions and upper midrange (especially on trumpet and flute and instruments with a brassy edge, where it was especially faithful, even delivering that slightly shrieky sound of the piccolo).  Mozart's Horn Concertos have never sounded better on my rig with the LCD-2's.  By contrast, I slightly preferred the Norse 8-conductor on the bass, especially deep organ notes and tympani (think, for instance, the storm sequence in Britten's "Peter Grimes").  I felt the Norse had more impact, but the Q may have had more detail/clarity in the bass.  Again, texture-wise, I felt the harmonics of a double bassoon were relayed with more fidelity by the Q, but the bass guitar had slightly more "drive" with the Norse.  So the bass was a wash for me, with points awarded to all players and no clear win.  In the midrange, I love the LCD-2's for vocals, and here I felt that the Q's were a little more faithful to what I remembered some of my favorite singers sounding like in concert, that is, the tonality of their voices was just right.  I think the Norse were equally good, and clearly much better than the stock cable.  I would have been quite happy with the Norse and never looked back, if Keven (kwkarth) hadn't talked me into trying the Q's.
 
The Q's have it all over the Norse for comfort.  In the end, that's what decided me.  I don't think the SQ was different enough for me to decide on that basis, and if I already owned the Norse, I certainly wouldn't abandon them for the Q's, just because of a slightly different presentation.  They're really remarkable on their own.
 
Hope this helps.


 
 
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:48 AM Post #759 of 2,398
WA and DE, thanks for your great reviews and time spent comparing. Kudos to you both for you are both more patient than me.
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM Post #760 of 2,398


Quote:
I'm going to order my LCD-2 and Apex Peak/Volcano amp this week. Is silver or copper better for a hybrid amp? I don't mind paying the extra for silver if it makes a big difference.

At the start of this thread there is a lot of mention about the Silver ALO cable and Moon Silver Dragon cable but now in the last 10 pages all I read is talk about the Q Audio copper cable. Has anyone listened to all 3 cables? It just seems like people are trying to sell the Q Audio cable and I haven't read any comparisons.
 


I have not heard the ALO, but I own the Silver Dragon and the Q-Audio.  The Silver Dragon is so noticeably brighter that I don't like it so I prefer to use the Q-Audio.  Plus Steve is a friend, so that never hurt either, lol.  
 
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM Post #761 of 2,398


Quote:
I have not heard the ALO, but I own the Silver Dragon and the Q-Audio.  The Silver Dragon is so noticeably brighter that I don't like it so I prefer to use the Q-Audio.  Plus Steve is a friend, so that never hurt either, lol.  
 

 
That's a great observation!  And you're right, Steve is good people!
 
I only heard the Silver Dragon under meet conditions, so no long-term listening impressions.  I always thought it was a band-aid for people who bought LCD-2's but missed the brighter high-frequency signature of other headphone brands.  I consider the LCD-2 treble nicely balanced -- and I guess the latest drivers are even better (haven't heard yet). 
 
The Silver Dragon seems to be a solution to a "problem" that I do not think is there.  
 
YMMV.
 
 
 
Aug 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM Post #762 of 2,398


Quote:
I'm going to order my LCD-2 and Apex Peak/Volcano amp this week. Is silver or copper better for a hybrid amp? I don't mind paying the extra for silver if it makes a big difference.

At the start of this thread there is a lot of mention about the Silver ALO cable and Moon Silver Dragon cable but now in the last 10 pages all I read is talk about the Q Audio copper cable. Has anyone listened to all 3 cables? It just seems like people are trying to sell the Q Audio cable and I haven't read any comparisons.
 



I think Skylab has tried some cables, including at least the Moon Silver, ALO Chain mail, Q Audio and Norse and I believe he preferred the Q Audio in sound and ergonomics.
 
I bought a Double Helix Molecule OCC Silver that came in yesterday, but didn't extensively listen/compare yet. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with one of Steve's cables eventually, and compare the two.
Anyhow, Peter from Double Helix made me a beatiful cable:
 

 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top