[Nabillion_786]

Maybe try some burn-in process (if you believe), that's what I do on each drivers and cables I receive, sometimes it helps a lot.
This is the first time I hear that 175 is mid recessed, so it is weird.

Ive read through this thread and 3 other people in total have said the same. If they change after burn in then I'm willing to give it ago but has anyone else noticed any difference? Also I am very curious as to what material the stock fdx1 cable is made from as out of the box the fdx1 cable had a more forward vocals presentation and not too far away in technicalities when compared to the 175 4 core cable. My next cable will definitely be the s16 cable as this should hopefully accentuate the mids and treble even further and others have stated more girth due to the thickness of the cable which I 100% believe because I have experienced this with the tfz no.3 ti stock cable.

 

[RikudouGoku]

Ok my final conclusion of the 175 4 core cable is that it definitely brings more details but I actually prefer the stock cable as the vocals take a bit of a hit on the 175 cable. Even though they sound slightly more detailed they are definitely more recessed and I am a vocals fanatic which is a huge deal breaker for me. Honestly there was no soundstage increase to my ears aswell but maybe that's what I would get in the 8 core version. I'm probably gonna get a fully pure silver or spc cable next as I want detail but don't want any reduction in mids. But overall beautiful cable that adds more details.

Maybe it is because the sound, sounds further away from you with the 175 or it could be a bad combo with your iem. ( my KXXS is really bad with 175)

 

[subwoof3r]

Ive read through this thread and 3 other people in total have said the same. If they change after burn in then I'm willing to give it ago but has anyone else noticed any difference? Also I am very curious as to what material the stock fdx1 cable is made from as out of the box the fdx1 cable had a more forward vocals presentation and not too far away in technicalities when compared to the 175 4 core cable. My next cable will definitely be the s16 cable as this should hopefully accentuate the mids and treble even further and others have stated more girth due to the thickness of the cable which I 100% believe because I have experienced this with the tfz no.3 ti stock cable.

If you're looking for a great vocal (mids) bump, then I would clearly suggest you the ISN Audio S4
A bit less details and bass compared to 175 thought.

 

[Dsnuts]

Cable matching is much like tip matching. In otherwords. You gotta really understand what your trying to go for. The 175 cable is more about neutrality, balance, stage, blackness of space, details as it uses silver as a base.

neutrally balance cable going on a more neutrally balance earphone and this might not be the synergy you want. I do believe stock cable is a Oxygen free copper variety. I think more copper is what you need on the phone.

It also depends on if your using said cables with BA based iems or Dynamic based iems. Just because a cable worked out great for one iem does not mean it will do the same for another. I can see how the 175 cable will not match up well with the FDX1. FDX1 need girth

Go for the S16. It is what your looking for. I like the H-16 on the FDX1 for even a fuller sound as well.

Oh and cable burn in is for real. But the effects of burn in on a cable is slightly more fuller sound and expansion. It is very subtle but there is a difference. Just use your cables on your phones and it will do the trick.

 

[radarnigz5]

Where from I can get this? How much is the cost?

from ali search "awesame plugs rhodium", less than 100usd

 

[Nabillion_786]

Cable matching is much like tip matching. In otherwords. You gotta really understand what your trying to go for. The 175 cable is more about neutrality, balance, stage, blackness of space, details as it uses silver as a base.

neutrally balance cable going on a more neutrally balance earphone and this might not be the synergy you want. I do believe stock cable is a Oxygen free copper variety. I think more copper is what you need on the phone.

It also depends on if your using said cables with BA based iems or Dynamic based iems. Just because a cable worked out great for one iem does not mean it will do the same for another. I can see how the 175 cable will not match up well with the FDX1. FDX1 need girth

Go for the S16. It is what your looking for. I like the H-16 on the FDX1 for even a fuller sound as well.

Oh and cable burn in is for real. But the effects of burn in on a cable is slightly more fuller sound and expansion. It is very subtle but there is a difference. Just use your cables on your phones and it will do the trick.

Thanks for this input! I've also heard good things about the isn S4 and your recommended isn sc4 cable. From all the great cables would you still choose the s16 cable for them? All I honestly want for my fdx1 is more stage and thicker sounding vocals without decreasing the mids, warming the sound or sacrificing any clarity as this is where I feel the fdx1 shine. I love my vocals and the 175 4 core cable place them further back which is a huge deal for me. But the most surprising thing for me is that the stage was very similar, infact I'd say that the stock cable had more airiness and expansion to the sound which left my head scratching. My phone is the Asus Rog phone 2 maybe that is part of the problem? A killer phone but not sure about its sound capabilities.

 

[Dsnuts]

I think 175 is better suited for warmer sounding in ear using BAs more so than dynamics. Just testing out various cables on the FDX1 I am perfectly happy with the ISN cables on it vs a higher end silver based cable.

So this goes to show you just because a cable is higher end and uses pure silver and such. Don't mean it will jive with a particular earphone. I am using a cheaper cable on my IT04 as well and it synergizes with that vs my $180 plus cables. As the IT04 being more neutral needed more of a fuller presentation.

Look at it this way. For the cost of a 175 you can get a H-16, S-16 and a S4 and still have money left over for some Azla Sendafit tips. You can get all 3 and judge yourself which cable would be to your liking.

My findings are as follows. Out of the 3 I would go S-16. Adds fullness and stage, retrains treble emphasis with that added stage. Keeps that bass end intact as well due to the core being copper,

H-16. Adds the fullest widest sound sonically with a slight touch of wamth

S4. Best detail out of the 3 earphones. Doesnt take away from the stage of the stock cable but has the best detail retrieval out of the 3.

 

[Kazz123]

So I'm looking for an stereo RCA interconnect, and debating between soldering one out of some shielded per-meter coaxial cable and Neutrik connectors, or buying a pre-made one.

Both options would be about 15$, be it 4 connectors and a meter of cable, or some 0.75m cable called "Dynavox Perfect Sound stereo Cinch".

Neutrik are of course very well-known among audio people, and even their basic connectors look high-enough-quality for RCA:

This Dynavox cable looks quite alright as well, at least way better than 3$ plastic RCA cables. Never heard of this company, but I'm not particularly a cable guy. The cables is said to be good OFC copper and gold-plated pins.

What's the better option? Has anyone heard of Dynavox around here?

 

[JayGold]

I know my testing has opened my eyes. And the only way I’m buying cables anymore is if I test them myself or rebuild them myself. It’s just too easy to fake them.

Have you guys ever wondered why 90% of these cables have GLUED ON plugs? It’s because anyone would be able to simply unscrew the 3.5mm plug and see everything right there as plain as day (fake or not). So, glue the plugs closed so they can’t see what’s under the hood, so all they’ll worry about is how pretty all those braided wires look.

And you hit the nail on the head with the unskilled labor. That was my point - I am VERY skilled, and even building a true 8-core wire was a stretch for my skills. And I wasn’t even doing mmcx or 2-pin! All I was doing was cutting off the 2-pin ends, and soldering 2.5mm plugs in their place to make a full size headphone cable). The 2.5mm plugs I used have 10xs the soldering surface area than a mmcx or 2-pin plug.

So if I had that much difficulty (when I am not only highly skilled but I also had 10xs more room to work with) then there is no way on earth I believe that there’s any more than a few wires connected to 90% these 8 and 16-core IEM cables.

Sure, a manufacturer might build a real 16-core IEM cable for ad photos, or to send to a reviewer. But the ones they’re mass producing for general sale in their factory and selling for $24 are gonna be fake, and I’m willing to bet $100 cash on that belief. I hope someone takes me up on the bet and proved me wrong.

I think the only hope of a true 16-core IEM cable is a hand built cable from a small specialized boutique builder. And I’d expect to pay $250+ for it. Plus I’d want photographic proof taken during cable construction before I placed an order. And a boutique cable builder would be willing to do that.

The point is to look at buying an 8 or 16-core IEM cables for the looks. It’s a fashion accessory. Some of the 8-core cables might be real. But 99% of the 16-core cables will be fake.

In the future, if I’m buying a pre-made cable I’m going to stick with 4-core cables. Why? Because 4 core cables are impossible to connect any less than 4 cores (L+, L-, R+, R-). You can’t fake a 4 core cable and have it still be a functional cable.

Sorry to respond to an old post but

I ordered a 16 core trn t2 cable because it was discounted at 8 euros. I dont believe in cable magic (as in, i dont think ANY cable will provide an audible improvement) and for me 21 euros is already a lot to be spending on a cable. For my full size cans i usually just get cheap whatever cables at the dollar store. I just want something a little sturdy and functional (doesnt reduce sound quality- i do believe a truly crappy cable can reduce quality)
Will i be disappointed with this purchase?

 

[zedbg]

Is this cable been tested by someone? Looks better than the usual 10-15 usd cable and the price is nice - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000410317963.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.39cd3c00xaqAIz&mp=1

 

[Dsnuts]

I have a set of those. Not bad copper cable. Does what pure copper does. I havent used it much though as I have been busy with reviewing. Will have to test out that cable a bit more. It seems solid for the price however. They seem to be similar to the Hibicus cables people seem to like but in a thicker 8 core configuration.

Speaking of reviews. I have a new cable I will introduce to the thread. Will post some picks soon.

 

[TooPoorForHiFi]

Anyone got experience with this Hidizs Cable?

 

[Dsnuts]

New ISN cable ISN CU4. Thick cores of high end crystal copper 4 cores. Will let you all know how it is once I get em. https://penonaudio.com/isn-audio-cu4.html

 

[FlacFan]

@Dsnuts

OK, but $149 is not "low end", "cheap", "generic", "Otherwise bang for the buck" or am I missing something?

I am just sayin'...

Cheers

 

[Dsnuts]

Well It is relative. Look up same material type cables on Effect Audio web site. It is cheap in comparison. We have covered Electro Acousti cables on this thread and those regularly go above $180-$200. So I think it applies to this thread.

I have tried and own my share of the Aliexpress cables all mentioned on this thread and while those are of a good value. Once cables hit the magic $100-$200 range. The cables use much higher end material and workmanship that warrants thier cost. But most importantly these give more of what you would expect from such cables. ISN and Penon cables $100-$200 range that I have tried all do something a bit extra in terms of sound enhancements better than sub $100 cables and for that alone it is worth mentioning for certain.