markl
Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 9,130
- Likes
- 49
Retail Price
$799
Web Site
http://members.ispwest.com/orim/audio/x-1.html
Test Bed
Source: sacdmods Sony 555ES SACD player
Amp: Ray Samuels HR-2, AD797 op-amps
Headphones: Sony MDR-R10
Reference Interconnects
Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ighlight=wolff
Music Preference
"Rock"/”Pop”-- some alternative rock, some classic rock, some punk, some New Wave, some hard rock, some electronic, some 60s/70s soul, some 70s funk, some singer-songwriters, some folk, some blues, and some country.
Intro
After reading some of the recent hub-bub here in this forum about Oritek cables, I was very curious to hear a pair of them for myself. Most reviews so far have focused on Ori’s entry-level cable, the X-1, which retails at $199. The X-1 has been compared several times to the excellent Grover cables in head-to-head review threads that have occasionally resulted in some, let’s say, “heated” discussions.
From my reading, I surmise that both cables seem to be relatively competitive performance-wise, but provide very different sound signatures that cause very different reactions among end-users in terms of overall preference. But both Grover and Ori partisans do seem to agree that both cables represent outstanding value and performance for a surprisingly low cost.
The X-2 is Ori’s current top-of-the-line, and from what I’ve read from Ori, appears to have very few (if any) structural similarities to the much lower-priced X-1, so I surmise they don’t sound very much alike. I could have confirmed this, as Ori sent me both the X-1 and the X-2 to evaluate, but I confess I skipped over the X-1 altogether and went straight for the X-2s. Ori’s web site is short on details, and Ori seems to be somewhat tight-lipped about what is in the X-2, but from what I’ve read, I can glean the following facts: they are not silver, he has applied for a patent on them, and they require nearly 8 hours of manual labor to assemble. Personally, I’m really not overly concerned with what is or isn’t in any particular cable; I’ve heard enough to conclude that knowing the individual ingredients and construction method tells you nearly nothing about how the finished product will sound in your system. In any event, Ori seems to feel his design is unique and unlike other cables on the market.
Build/Fit & Finish
To be brutally honest, the X-2 does not look like a $799 cable (whatever that’s “supposed” to look like anyway). In a way, they remind me more of the very home-made-looking Grover cables. No fancy sheathing or cosmetics, no beefy, deluxe WBT monster RCA connectors, no absurd stiffness or extreme heavy weight. Instead, the light-weight, thin X-2 is housed in a slim black plastic-y rubbery tube with what *look like* (but may not be) fairly non-descript RCA connectors similar in build to the ones Grover uses, hand-cut red rubber bands indicating L/R connections, and a home-brewed looking logo wrapped around the center of each cable. They also fit quite snugly like the Grover cables.
So, not exactly eye-candy if that’s at all a factor to you. Personally, I’m not that hung up on the looks of cables, especially when they spend their lives hidden behind my components anyway. It’s all about how they sound for me. OTOH, if you prefer a more “hand-crafted” feel to your components, the X-2 certainly look like a human made them, not a machine.
Review
After reading the reviews of the X-1, I was expecting the X-2 to be a somewhat forward, sharp, crisp, incisive, possibly even aggressive cable. On his website, Ori enthusiastically calls it “the sledgehammer of audio cables”. To my ears, in my system, coming from my reference (the Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon ICs), that’s not what I got in the X-2.
I think one of the keys to reading a cable review is to understand where the reviewer is coming from. Whether he means to or not, he’s always comparing the new piece to his reference, and all comments are made with respect to it. If you are coming from a very mellow, hazy cable, a slightly less mellow cable may sound like a monster, but still veiled to someone else. If you are coming from a very aggressive, harsh cable, another still mildly forward cable may sound mellow and dull to you, yet still too aggressive to someone else.
Anyway, I’ve linked above to my in-depth review of my current reference IC, the Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon. While this is not necessarily a contest between the two cables, I can't help but describe the X-2 in contrast with the Wolffs, it's inevitable. Please note I am EXAGGERATING the differences between the two cables to make the picture of each clearer and more vivid for the reader.
From my perspective, the X-2 is fairly mellow, warm, and easy-on-the-ears, with an extremely pleasant, listenable vibe. But it’s not a light-weight, thin, hazy, feeble or lean cable; if you're familiar with any of my previous reviews you know by now I just detest that kind of sound! The main thing it has in common with the Wolff cables is an extreme cleanliness, an analog smoothness of character; neither cable calls attention to itself with unpleasant harshness, sibilance, frayed edges, grain, hash, or any of the usual deal-breaking nasties one gets depressingly accustomed to finding right away. They make music sound like music, not like a recording of music. Beyond that they diverge.
Where the Wolff errs on the lush, sweet, romantic and rich side, the Oritek X-2 errs on the slightly dry, warm, and prosaic side. I feel the Oritek X-2 would strike the average listener as being “more neutral” than the Wolff cables, in that the Wolffs have a more immediately noticeable character/flavor (albeit a delicious one). But that’s not to say that I think the X-2 is 100% neutral. IMO, the X-2 very subtly and pleasantly rolls the high highs, and the low lows without choking the sound. The X-2 has more emphasis in the mids, but its dry and mellow nature prevents it from sounding like a coloration. It’s not a tubey, fat and rich middle, there’s just slightly more middle than top or bottom.
The X-2 sounds incredibly natural, it doesn’t have a jacked-up, over-hyped, over-cooked whiz-bang “hi-fi” sound. It lets you kick back and ease into the music without becoming bored or impatient, and that’s a hard balancing act to achieve. I have a hunch this sound would appeal more to older or old-school audiophiles than to some younger folks looking for that instant hit or rush. Maybe to them they would feel it just doesn’t “do enough” that they can easily identify out of the box to justify its cost. But do you *really* want a cable that monkeys excessively with the sound of your rig with lots of cheap overbearing gimmicks? Or do you want it to just pass the sound cleanly? Once you get over what it *isn’t* doing, the X-2 reveals its charms over prolonged listening; it gets better and better the more you hear it, and that’s the *real* test of quality, isn’t it? Also, it’s often those more immediate, instant gratification components that quickly become grating and fatiguing over time, to the point where you wonder why you never listen to your music anymore. In any event, I really don’t think the X-2 will be a source of fatigue in most systems, and that's a very good thing indeed.
In many ways the sound of the X-2 reminds me of the sound of Steve Hoffman’s DCC Gold CDs, or the Mobile Fidelity Gold CDs (which sound especially good through the X-2, BTW). It’s sort of an old-school hi-fi sound, a “super-sounds of the 70s” kind of feel: hyper-analog, with a tube warmth, tube highs, tube body, but without the tube lushness and richness or sweetened top-end. A bit dry, with unobtrusive bass, no sharp outlines around the sound, and a total lack of glare or digital sheen. The X-2 has a nice organic, relaxed vibe that lends itself to long, languid, closed-eyed listening sessions. They invite the listener in, and can easily captivate your ears song after song.
I also noticed the X-2 plays ever-so-slightly softer than the Wolff cables. With the X-2, one gets the feeling the music is coming through a slightly smaller pipe; it also leaves the impression there are a few rocks in the river bed of the X-2 that ever-so-slightly slow the overall flow of the musical stream, but not to any particularly detrimental degree. Without the Wolff as a reference, I doubt I would have noticed this at all.
In terms of soundstage, the X-2 sets you back a row or two and presents the music in a plane in front of your nose, where the Wolffs appear to completely surround your head. Soundstage height from the X-2s is slightly reduced vs. the Wolff, which throws a bigger, more “epic” spectacle. The X-2 is more contained and some might argue more natural, if a bit 2-D front to back. I can’t shake the nagging feeling the X-2 is just slightly closed in or damped down, like the music is occurring inside a bubble that you are *just* on the other side of. Sometimes you want to pop it and step inside.
The Wolffs delineate individual sounds more adeptly than the X-2, with each instrument clearly occupying its own pocket. The X-2 tends to homogenize things a bit, albeit into a very organic, creamy, and tasty soup. Some might argue the X-2 is more coherent than the Wolffs, better at presenting the whole gestalt rather than the individual parts or ingredients; others might say it’s simply less resolving.
In terms of PRAT, the X-2 is certainly a nimble cable, but not supremely fast or rhythmic. It has a slightly “heavier” overall sound, which somewhat limits air and note decay, while the Wolff is lighter on its feet and airier, with a greater sense of “ease” and flow. The Oritek X-2 doesn’t have an excessive amount of slam or heft, it’s not a bass monster, but it’s in no way deficient either. Still, sounds through the Wolffs are more palpable, they allow you to “feel” the music, tickling the ear and exciting it a bit more. String plucks are less tangible and drums pound less hard through the X-2. The bottom bass octave is more audible through the Wolffs, and to my ears, the X-2’s bass is a tad less firm and has a tiny, barely noticeable “rubbery” coloration to it. The X-2 tends to draw your attention more to vocals than the rhythm section.
Treble with the X-2 is very nice indeed, as I said earlier, utterly devoid of any nasties. I’m particularly sensitive to bad treble, it’s one of the things I notice straight away. The X-2 passes that test with flying colors. It also sounds very natural and real, it doesn’t sugar-coat or add glare or a halo-effect, and it won’t stab or assault your ears. But I can’t escape the feeling that there is just a *slight* and gentle roll-off at the very extreme end. This really doesn’t bother me and might actually be a boon in certain systems. But I do think it’s worth a passing mention.
The X-2 is not a hyper-detailed, super resolving cable. It’s not hyper-transparent, analytical, crisp or overly focused. It’s warm, a bit soft on the edges, and won’t put your recordings under the microscope for dissection, preferring to focus on the bigger picture. That’s not to say the Oritek X-2 is a blurry, noisy, lo-rez or “veiled” cable; just that its generally easy-going character and added warmth may mean the cable will possibly miss some appeal to those looking for a more defined, sharper, analytical sound. Depending on the listener, that’s either a plus or a minus.
Conclusion
If you are looking for that “holy cow”, “gee-whiz”, “oh my God” experience straight out of the box, from what I’ve heard on my system, that’s not what the X-2 delivers (and in some ways, that’s not really what the great components always do). It’s more of a refined, natural, subtle, nuanced cable that reveals itself over extended listening. I can heartily recommend the Oritek X-2 if you fall into any of the following categories:
--If you are more of a stickler for neutral/natural/organic tonality than for pure resolution.
--If you want "just the facts, ma'am". If your idea of a great component is one that effortlessly disappears, rather than one that screams at you to look at it every few seconds to make its presence felt.
--If you are more concerned with experiencing the totality of the musical performance than witnessing each of its individual elements.
--If you like slightly warm mids, gentle, slightly rolled but clean highs, and a well-behaved bottom end.
--If you like an old-school analog, vinyl sound as opposed to a polished, shiny, glaring, biting, crispy, analytical, modern digital sound.
--Cleanliness is next to Godlines. You can’t stand artifical twinges, distortion, sweeteners, grain, or hash, but don’t mind trading that off for slightly soft edges.
--If, instead of banging your head and dancing naked around your living room, your idea of audio heaven is shutting off the lights, loading up the changer with a half-dozen CDs, kicking back in the easy chair, closing your eyes and just drifting away for a few hours.
Final Thoughts
Overall, I was very impressed with the X-2 and greatly enjoyed my time with it. Nothing sticks out as being objectionable, it doesn’t do anything “wrong”, so it commits no "sins of commission”, and that’s hard to find in a cable, so that alone makes it a good value. For the right listener, in the right system, I can easily see this cable being pure bliss. I also think that, with its organic and natural feel, it would even pass the test of the empirically minded and those obsessed with “neutrality”. I think I can say that despite its slight added warmth and tiny roll-off at the extremes; the X-2 simply doesn’t impose a “fake” or synthetic coloration on the sound or exaggerate in any way. It makes music sound like music not “hi-fi”.
For me, while I can find little to criticize in the X-2’s sound, and very much to like, I’m not sure I feel *passionately* about this cable. If the Wolff cable (which I freely admit has a very idiosyncratic sound) hadn’t set the bar so high for me and rung so many of my bells all at once, that probably wouldn’t be the case. IMO, the X-2 nicely outperforms my next favorite cable, the Grover Ultimate Reference. I think most people would be well-pleased with the X-2, so I feel confident recommending it, it’s a terrific cable.
Nice job, Ori!
$799
Web Site
http://members.ispwest.com/orim/audio/x-1.html
Test Bed
Source: sacdmods Sony 555ES SACD player
Amp: Ray Samuels HR-2, AD797 op-amps
Headphones: Sony MDR-R10
Reference Interconnects
Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ighlight=wolff
Music Preference
"Rock"/”Pop”-- some alternative rock, some classic rock, some punk, some New Wave, some hard rock, some electronic, some 60s/70s soul, some 70s funk, some singer-songwriters, some folk, some blues, and some country.
Intro
After reading some of the recent hub-bub here in this forum about Oritek cables, I was very curious to hear a pair of them for myself. Most reviews so far have focused on Ori’s entry-level cable, the X-1, which retails at $199. The X-1 has been compared several times to the excellent Grover cables in head-to-head review threads that have occasionally resulted in some, let’s say, “heated” discussions.
The X-2 is Ori’s current top-of-the-line, and from what I’ve read from Ori, appears to have very few (if any) structural similarities to the much lower-priced X-1, so I surmise they don’t sound very much alike. I could have confirmed this, as Ori sent me both the X-1 and the X-2 to evaluate, but I confess I skipped over the X-1 altogether and went straight for the X-2s. Ori’s web site is short on details, and Ori seems to be somewhat tight-lipped about what is in the X-2, but from what I’ve read, I can glean the following facts: they are not silver, he has applied for a patent on them, and they require nearly 8 hours of manual labor to assemble. Personally, I’m really not overly concerned with what is or isn’t in any particular cable; I’ve heard enough to conclude that knowing the individual ingredients and construction method tells you nearly nothing about how the finished product will sound in your system. In any event, Ori seems to feel his design is unique and unlike other cables on the market.
Build/Fit & Finish
To be brutally honest, the X-2 does not look like a $799 cable (whatever that’s “supposed” to look like anyway). In a way, they remind me more of the very home-made-looking Grover cables. No fancy sheathing or cosmetics, no beefy, deluxe WBT monster RCA connectors, no absurd stiffness or extreme heavy weight. Instead, the light-weight, thin X-2 is housed in a slim black plastic-y rubbery tube with what *look like* (but may not be) fairly non-descript RCA connectors similar in build to the ones Grover uses, hand-cut red rubber bands indicating L/R connections, and a home-brewed looking logo wrapped around the center of each cable. They also fit quite snugly like the Grover cables.
So, not exactly eye-candy if that’s at all a factor to you. Personally, I’m not that hung up on the looks of cables, especially when they spend their lives hidden behind my components anyway. It’s all about how they sound for me. OTOH, if you prefer a more “hand-crafted” feel to your components, the X-2 certainly look like a human made them, not a machine.
Review
After reading the reviews of the X-1, I was expecting the X-2 to be a somewhat forward, sharp, crisp, incisive, possibly even aggressive cable. On his website, Ori enthusiastically calls it “the sledgehammer of audio cables”. To my ears, in my system, coming from my reference (the Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon ICs), that’s not what I got in the X-2.
I think one of the keys to reading a cable review is to understand where the reviewer is coming from. Whether he means to or not, he’s always comparing the new piece to his reference, and all comments are made with respect to it. If you are coming from a very mellow, hazy cable, a slightly less mellow cable may sound like a monster, but still veiled to someone else. If you are coming from a very aggressive, harsh cable, another still mildly forward cable may sound mellow and dull to you, yet still too aggressive to someone else.
Anyway, I’ve linked above to my in-depth review of my current reference IC, the Wolff Silver/Gold/Carbon. While this is not necessarily a contest between the two cables, I can't help but describe the X-2 in contrast with the Wolffs, it's inevitable. Please note I am EXAGGERATING the differences between the two cables to make the picture of each clearer and more vivid for the reader.
From my perspective, the X-2 is fairly mellow, warm, and easy-on-the-ears, with an extremely pleasant, listenable vibe. But it’s not a light-weight, thin, hazy, feeble or lean cable; if you're familiar with any of my previous reviews you know by now I just detest that kind of sound! The main thing it has in common with the Wolff cables is an extreme cleanliness, an analog smoothness of character; neither cable calls attention to itself with unpleasant harshness, sibilance, frayed edges, grain, hash, or any of the usual deal-breaking nasties one gets depressingly accustomed to finding right away. They make music sound like music, not like a recording of music. Beyond that they diverge.
Where the Wolff errs on the lush, sweet, romantic and rich side, the Oritek X-2 errs on the slightly dry, warm, and prosaic side. I feel the Oritek X-2 would strike the average listener as being “more neutral” than the Wolff cables, in that the Wolffs have a more immediately noticeable character/flavor (albeit a delicious one). But that’s not to say that I think the X-2 is 100% neutral. IMO, the X-2 very subtly and pleasantly rolls the high highs, and the low lows without choking the sound. The X-2 has more emphasis in the mids, but its dry and mellow nature prevents it from sounding like a coloration. It’s not a tubey, fat and rich middle, there’s just slightly more middle than top or bottom.
The X-2 sounds incredibly natural, it doesn’t have a jacked-up, over-hyped, over-cooked whiz-bang “hi-fi” sound. It lets you kick back and ease into the music without becoming bored or impatient, and that’s a hard balancing act to achieve. I have a hunch this sound would appeal more to older or old-school audiophiles than to some younger folks looking for that instant hit or rush. Maybe to them they would feel it just doesn’t “do enough” that they can easily identify out of the box to justify its cost. But do you *really* want a cable that monkeys excessively with the sound of your rig with lots of cheap overbearing gimmicks? Or do you want it to just pass the sound cleanly? Once you get over what it *isn’t* doing, the X-2 reveals its charms over prolonged listening; it gets better and better the more you hear it, and that’s the *real* test of quality, isn’t it? Also, it’s often those more immediate, instant gratification components that quickly become grating and fatiguing over time, to the point where you wonder why you never listen to your music anymore. In any event, I really don’t think the X-2 will be a source of fatigue in most systems, and that's a very good thing indeed.
In many ways the sound of the X-2 reminds me of the sound of Steve Hoffman’s DCC Gold CDs, or the Mobile Fidelity Gold CDs (which sound especially good through the X-2, BTW). It’s sort of an old-school hi-fi sound, a “super-sounds of the 70s” kind of feel: hyper-analog, with a tube warmth, tube highs, tube body, but without the tube lushness and richness or sweetened top-end. A bit dry, with unobtrusive bass, no sharp outlines around the sound, and a total lack of glare or digital sheen. The X-2 has a nice organic, relaxed vibe that lends itself to long, languid, closed-eyed listening sessions. They invite the listener in, and can easily captivate your ears song after song.
I also noticed the X-2 plays ever-so-slightly softer than the Wolff cables. With the X-2, one gets the feeling the music is coming through a slightly smaller pipe; it also leaves the impression there are a few rocks in the river bed of the X-2 that ever-so-slightly slow the overall flow of the musical stream, but not to any particularly detrimental degree. Without the Wolff as a reference, I doubt I would have noticed this at all.
In terms of soundstage, the X-2 sets you back a row or two and presents the music in a plane in front of your nose, where the Wolffs appear to completely surround your head. Soundstage height from the X-2s is slightly reduced vs. the Wolff, which throws a bigger, more “epic” spectacle. The X-2 is more contained and some might argue more natural, if a bit 2-D front to back. I can’t shake the nagging feeling the X-2 is just slightly closed in or damped down, like the music is occurring inside a bubble that you are *just* on the other side of. Sometimes you want to pop it and step inside.
The Wolffs delineate individual sounds more adeptly than the X-2, with each instrument clearly occupying its own pocket. The X-2 tends to homogenize things a bit, albeit into a very organic, creamy, and tasty soup. Some might argue the X-2 is more coherent than the Wolffs, better at presenting the whole gestalt rather than the individual parts or ingredients; others might say it’s simply less resolving.
In terms of PRAT, the X-2 is certainly a nimble cable, but not supremely fast or rhythmic. It has a slightly “heavier” overall sound, which somewhat limits air and note decay, while the Wolff is lighter on its feet and airier, with a greater sense of “ease” and flow. The Oritek X-2 doesn’t have an excessive amount of slam or heft, it’s not a bass monster, but it’s in no way deficient either. Still, sounds through the Wolffs are more palpable, they allow you to “feel” the music, tickling the ear and exciting it a bit more. String plucks are less tangible and drums pound less hard through the X-2. The bottom bass octave is more audible through the Wolffs, and to my ears, the X-2’s bass is a tad less firm and has a tiny, barely noticeable “rubbery” coloration to it. The X-2 tends to draw your attention more to vocals than the rhythm section.
Treble with the X-2 is very nice indeed, as I said earlier, utterly devoid of any nasties. I’m particularly sensitive to bad treble, it’s one of the things I notice straight away. The X-2 passes that test with flying colors. It also sounds very natural and real, it doesn’t sugar-coat or add glare or a halo-effect, and it won’t stab or assault your ears. But I can’t escape the feeling that there is just a *slight* and gentle roll-off at the very extreme end. This really doesn’t bother me and might actually be a boon in certain systems. But I do think it’s worth a passing mention.
The X-2 is not a hyper-detailed, super resolving cable. It’s not hyper-transparent, analytical, crisp or overly focused. It’s warm, a bit soft on the edges, and won’t put your recordings under the microscope for dissection, preferring to focus on the bigger picture. That’s not to say the Oritek X-2 is a blurry, noisy, lo-rez or “veiled” cable; just that its generally easy-going character and added warmth may mean the cable will possibly miss some appeal to those looking for a more defined, sharper, analytical sound. Depending on the listener, that’s either a plus or a minus.
Conclusion
If you are looking for that “holy cow”, “gee-whiz”, “oh my God” experience straight out of the box, from what I’ve heard on my system, that’s not what the X-2 delivers (and in some ways, that’s not really what the great components always do). It’s more of a refined, natural, subtle, nuanced cable that reveals itself over extended listening. I can heartily recommend the Oritek X-2 if you fall into any of the following categories:
--If you are more of a stickler for neutral/natural/organic tonality than for pure resolution.
--If you want "just the facts, ma'am". If your idea of a great component is one that effortlessly disappears, rather than one that screams at you to look at it every few seconds to make its presence felt.
--If you are more concerned with experiencing the totality of the musical performance than witnessing each of its individual elements.
--If you like slightly warm mids, gentle, slightly rolled but clean highs, and a well-behaved bottom end.
--If you like an old-school analog, vinyl sound as opposed to a polished, shiny, glaring, biting, crispy, analytical, modern digital sound.
--Cleanliness is next to Godlines. You can’t stand artifical twinges, distortion, sweeteners, grain, or hash, but don’t mind trading that off for slightly soft edges.
--If, instead of banging your head and dancing naked around your living room, your idea of audio heaven is shutting off the lights, loading up the changer with a half-dozen CDs, kicking back in the easy chair, closing your eyes and just drifting away for a few hours.
Final Thoughts
Overall, I was very impressed with the X-2 and greatly enjoyed my time with it. Nothing sticks out as being objectionable, it doesn’t do anything “wrong”, so it commits no "sins of commission”, and that’s hard to find in a cable, so that alone makes it a good value. For the right listener, in the right system, I can easily see this cable being pure bliss. I also think that, with its organic and natural feel, it would even pass the test of the empirically minded and those obsessed with “neutrality”. I think I can say that despite its slight added warmth and tiny roll-off at the extremes; the X-2 simply doesn’t impose a “fake” or synthetic coloration on the sound or exaggerate in any way. It makes music sound like music not “hi-fi”.
For me, while I can find little to criticize in the X-2’s sound, and very much to like, I’m not sure I feel *passionately* about this cable. If the Wolff cable (which I freely admit has a very idiosyncratic sound) hadn’t set the bar so high for me and rung so many of my bells all at once, that probably wouldn’t be the case. IMO, the X-2 nicely outperforms my next favorite cable, the Grover Ultimate Reference. I think most people would be well-pleased with the X-2, so I feel confident recommending it, it’s a terrific cable.
Nice job, Ori!