[rustyvinyl]

How the hell did I miss this post?! Was waiting anxiously for the report on the Acrolink cables. Great to see see such good measurement results. For me it's between this (ref 160) and the GUCraftsman spc cable (ref 133). Could you offer more comments on connector quality and cable ergonomics? How do they compare in terms of softness, thickness, microphonics, general comfort around the ear? Could you please post more side-by-side pics, with some details of the connectors? Any direct impressions on sound differences between these two? Thanks a lot!



Thanks for the report. Are you happy with the comfort?

Hi,the cable is a little stiff.
And like hakuzen said, the heat shield is too stiff as well. Both at the plug and mmcx connectors. Other than that it's a great buy.

 

[hakuzen]

How the hell did I miss this post?! Was waiting anxiously for the report on the Acrolink cables. Great to see see such good measurement results. For me it's between this (ref 160) and the GUCraftsman spc cable (ref 133). Could you offer more comments on connector quality and cable ergonomics? How do they compare in terms of softness, thickness, microphonics, general comfort around the ear? Could you please post more side-by-side pics, with some details of the connectors? Any direct impressions on sound differences between these two? Thanks a lot!

they both are soft, but not as flexible as other cheaper wires. 133 is more flexible than 160. braid work in 160 is tighter, conductor is a bit thicker (although total diameter of the cable is similar, like you can see at pics), and opaque pvc sleeve used might be harder. so 160 is stiffer.
microphonics use to be paired with rigidity, so some more microphonics as well. however, didn't notice them when listening to music. way less microphonics than found in typical cheap stock cables.
i don't have problems with rigidity, if it isn't extreme. but if flexibility is one of your main goals, forget 160.

about comfort around the ear, you can choose if you want ear guides when ordering cable 133. heat shrink plastic used in both. in the case of 133, Gu twists the 4 cores, and the result is narrower and more uniform. in the case of 160, the 4 cores keep braided.
you can always cut and remove the whole guide. haven't got issues with any of them, even wearing glasses. but guess that heat shrink guides could be too rigid for some people.

connectors. 133 uses alo audio (or styled alo audio) plugs. 160 uses acrolink plugs. both great quality, imo. acrolink jack is wider and longer than alo audio. i like both much more than oyaide or furutech styled jacks (found more problems in these ones).
strain relief in jack is also a heat shrink plastic. much longer in the case of 160. this is not ideal. too much rigid. i use to add rubber or silicone strain reliefs in these cases, to get more durability.
mmcx plugs of 160 are also my fav mmcx plugs. repairable plugs, although couldn't unscrew them easily (hope both jack and plugs can be unscrewed by applying a bit of heat).




it's difficult to do AB with cables, and differences are minimal. but both are on top of my list regards of sound preservation. very clean sound with both.

cables 160-161 are a great chance of getting a good wire (comparable to cables between $70 and $130) for less than $48 when at sale

 

[hakuzen]

added measurements of cable 155 to the list.
advertised as pure silver at most places, it's spc, not pure silver cable. resistance around 250mΩ.
it's funny to see prices going from $80 ("pure silver") to $27 (but not 2.5/4.4mm jacks) at different shops. the cable is identical.

links:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/-/32963189583.html nicehck cy1
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/-/32963249926.html nicehck vs audio
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/-/32982939514.html toneking avckck
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/-/32964307166.html antcodo (way cheapest!, various terminations, but not 2.5/4.4mm)
(there are other shops and re-brands)

 

[courierdriver]

This is attributed to the much lower crosstalk you get with balanced output. It's not because of the cable. Treble smoothness and warmth (sometimes tonality, depending on the IEM) is the main thing you will hear with the pure copper C16 cable.

Makes sense. Like I said in my post, my impressions are based only on the differences in sound based on what I was hearing when I swapped in the C16 with a balanced termination. It would have been nice if I had a balanced version of the Lyre cable on hand which would have made a direct comparison more meaningful. I kind of figured that the balanced out had more to do with it though. I noticed a similar change with my Massdrop Hifiman 4xx when I switched the cable from single ended to balanced.

 

[Netrum]

Hey everyone.

I love the cable that came with my iBasso IT10 and i would love to have something similar with my Nighthawks.

Have any of found a similar looking cable online with 2.5mm jacks so that i can use them with the nighthawks?

Thanks in advance.

 

[perfecious]

My OKCSC adapter just arrived.



Can't test it yet, because my cable hasn't arrived yet. I've noticed that it's not glued or cemented, in fact, the grey piece is kinda unscrewed, and I can easily screw it. Hope it's not damaged, but if it is, at least I can resolder it (if it's not some bizarre construction that can break from me "opening it" ofc). And now... going back to waiting for the cable.

 

[candlejack]

My OKCSC adapter just arrived.



Can't test it yet, because my cable hasn't arrived yet. I've noticed that it's not glued or cemented, in fact, the grey piece is kinda unscrewed, and I can easily screw it. Hope it's not damaged, but if it is, at least I can resolder it (if it's not some bizarre construction that can break from me "opening it" ofc). And now... going back to waiting for the cable.

I don't think it's particular to your copy. I bought 2 similar adapters from them and they both unscrew accidentally in normal use. The one I was able to test was working at least.

To keep it screwed in I added some fabric thread to the screw thread to generate some extra resistance. Works so far, but I wouldn't recommend this brand of adapters.

 

[zeppu08]

So i bought a regular 2 pin cable and didnt notice that the port of the iem where i will be using it is a recessed one. Any chance where i can buy an adoptor of the 2 pin to make it go into the recessed port? Thanks!

 

[zeppu08]

My OKCSC adapter just arrived.



Can't test it yet, because my cable hasn't arrived yet. I've noticed that it's not glued or cemented, in fact, the grey piece is kinda unscrewed, and I can easily screw it. Hope it's not damaged, but if it is, at least I can resolder it (if it's not some bizarre construction that can break from me "opening it" ofc). And now... going back to waiting for the cable.

Bought also one of this and got it also unscrewed a bit and can be easily open. Working perfectly fine and happy with it.

 

[mathi8vadhanan]

I don't think it's particular to your copy. I bought 2 similar adapters from them and they both unscrew accidentally in normal use. The one I was able to test was working at least.

To keep it screwed in I added some fabric thread to the screw thread to generate some extra resistance. Works so far, but I wouldn't recommend this brand of adapters.

I have these too and construction is good. But the female jack doesn't have enough friction and I keep loosing connection in one of the channels even when moved slightly.

I recommend this pigtail for about the same price. No issues with connection so far. It's as good as my $60 adapter from Ted.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2-5...to-TRRS-Female-Audio-Adapter/32852088300.html

 

[candlejack]

Analysis paralysis... :-?

They both are soft, but not as flexible as other cheaper wires. 133 is more flexible than 160. Braid work in 160 is tighter, conductor is a bit thicker (although total diameter of the cable is similar, like you can see at pics), and opaque pvc sleeve used might be harder. so 160 is stiffer.
Microphonics use to be paired with rigidity, so some more microphonics as well. However, didn't notice them when listening to music. Way less microphonics than found in typical cheap stock cables.
I don't have problems with rigidity, if it isn't extreme. But if flexibility is one of your main goals, forget 160.

Thanks for the details. Like you pointed out, my biggest issue with rigidity has to do with the microphonics that come with it, not so much the mechanical quality itself. There is a comfort element too, but that's secondary. If you've ever tried the ALO Ref. 8 cable, how do these compare to it? For me the Ref 8 is unacceptable in terms of stiffness and microphonics. You say forget the 160 if you want flexibility, but is 133 sufficiently better or should I forget that one as well?

 

[Cevisi]

He

Analysis paralysis... :-?


Thanks for the details. Like you pointed out, my biggest issue with rigidity has to do with the microphonics that come with it, not so much the mechanical quality itself. There is a comfort element too, but that's secondary. If you've ever tried the ALO Ref. 8 cable, how do these compare to it? For me the Ref 8 is unacceptable in terms of stiffness and microphonics. You say forget the 160 if you want flexibility, but is 133 sufficiently better or should I forget that one as well?

Hey got question what do you like more to listen your andros or the hd600

 

[candlejack]

Hey got question what do you like more to listen your andros or the hd600

I like the Andromeda more for everything.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Please help me understand how can a small difference in cable/wire resistance, e.g. from 0.5 to 0.3 or 0.1 Ohm, really matter?

The reasonable success of Resistance Adapters, ranging from about 20 to 200-300 Ohm rather supports an evidence of insignificance of small resistance changes.

The science behind Resistance Adapters is simple and straightforward:
1) Higher resistance requires increase in voltage (that comes as a significant limitation of this approach), but then if the source can supply the higher voltage then the signal-to-noise and the dynamic range become better.
2) The internal resistance/impedance of the source is removed as a factor.

A direct evidence of the success of using the higher resistance (of effectively cables) is the number of recent offerings of high-impedance earbuds (150, 300 and even 400 Ohm). It makes a really good sense there since higher dynamic ranges and less noise are very useful to get the best out of large dynamic drivers.

 

[candlejack]

Please help me understand how can a small difference in cable/wire resistance, e.g. from 0.5 to 0.3 or 0.1 Ohm, really matter?

The reasonable success of Resistance Adapters, ranging from about 20 to 200-300 Ohm rather supports an evidence of insignificance of small resistance changes.

The science behind Resistance Adapters is simple and straightforward:
1) Higher resistance requires increase in voltage (that comes as a significant limitation of this approach), but then if the source can supply the higher voltage then the signal-to-noise and the dynamic range become better.
2) The internal resistance/impedance of the source is removed as a factor.

A direct evidence of the success of using the higher resistance (of effectively cables) is the number of recent offerings of high-impedance earbuds (150, 300 and even 400 Ohm). It makes a really good sense there since higher dynamic ranges and less noise are very useful to get the best out of large dynamic drivers.

Isn't the validity of what you're saying limited to continuous, quasi-steady signals? For quickly changing voltages and sine-type signals, should this be true as well? Intuition tells me that having additional energy loss in the wire should not help with anything, rather the opposite.