[markl]

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!

 

[JahJahBinks]

I think reading your reviews is as enjoyable as listening to the cables.

 

[Ori]

Thank you Mark for the honest and entertaining review of the X-2. I really appreciate you taking the time to attack yet another review chore...

It is very interesting to read some of the issues you mentioned. I have to admit that I've done most of my listening to the X-2 in a speaker-based system, so it's hard for me to relate to "headstage".

I can only comment from my own impressions, critically listening to speaker-based systems.
The issue of stage height was indeed noticed in numerous cases, but in the reverse direction. In one instance against a Nordost Valhalla, it was the X-2 which presented a realistic height (I tend to call that "proportions", which encompasses 3-D) while the Valhalla gave an impression that the singer was staring you down... This is not an isolated event. IMO, the X-2 presents the realistic proportions, as captured on the recording.
On the issue of bass level and definition, I have a different take. It's best summed up in the 10Audio review (http://www.10audio.com/oritek_X-1.htm) which found that "bass goes from powerful with the X-1 to explosive with the X-2". Now, I have to admit that I'm not a subwoofer fan, but I'm not into mini-monitors either...
But this is all details. In my view, the X-2 presents a total which is way more than the sum of the individual ingredients. In the end, Mark pinpointed very nicely the essence of the X-2 as presenting an "organic and natural feel" of the musical event. While all the details are there, the X-2 is really more about the feel of music than about dissecting the minute details.
In the end, it's the music that counts, and the X-2 gives it to you unedited and as naturally as possible.

 

[markl]

Hi, Ori.

Quote:

Thank you Mark for the honest and entertaining review of the X-2. I really appreciate you taking the time to attack yet another review chore... It is very interesting to read some of the issues you mentioned.

Well, I wouldn't call them "issues" so much as "observations".

And it's really only a chore when you don't like the piece of gear.

Just so people know how this works (with me anyway), I told Ori up front what I'll be telling everyone else who wants to send me stuff from now on-- if I just don't like the product, I won't review it, just send it straight back. I don't have the time or inclination to do an attack piece, and no longer wish to deal with fall-out from bruised feelings. However, if I like the product, or have only some minor reservations/qualifications, or believe it has enough merit to really turn certain listeners on, then I'll write it up. Thus, the X-2 review we have here!

Quote:

IMO, the X-2 presents the realistic proportions, as captured on the recording.

Certainly possible. All I can say is I've long since given up trying to figure out what something is "supposed" to sound like, as that's (IMHO) just unknowable, so long as we have to rely on pieces of machinery to intervene in both recording and delivering the sound to our ears. So I've quit trying to figure out what is "neutral" and fall back on the more lazy, "I like" and "I don't like".

As it happens, I like a "big" soundstage, and to be closer to the performance. Maybe to some listeners, the stage presented by the Wolff is unrealistically big and the Ori just right, I think I did point that out in the review. And I don't want at all to give the impression the X-2 stage is puny, just slightly smaller than the very big Wolff. It's all relative.

Quote:

On the issue of bass level and definition, I have a different take. It's best summed up in the 10Audio review (http://www.10audio.com/oritek_X-1.htm) which found that "bass goes from powerful with the X-1 to explosive with the X-2". Now, I have to admit that I'm not a subwoofer fan, but I'm not into mini-monitors either...

Certainly fair enough. Again, all I can do is point to the paragraph talking about varying points of reference. It's totally likely that someone else, coming from a different set of cables, would find the X-2's bass "explosive". No doubt about it.

Quote:

But this is all details. In my view, the X-2 presents a total which is way more than the sum of the individual ingredients. In the end, Mark pinpointed very nicely the essence of the X-2 as presenting an "organic and natural feel" of the musical event. While all the details are there, the X-2 is really more about the feel of music than about dissecting the minute details. In the end, it's the music that counts, and the X-2 gives it to you unedited and as naturally as possible.

Completely agree here. Cheers!

 

[Ori]

Mark, I truly appreciate your review and comments. My own post was just to add my subjective view on the same issues/observations.
As you said, this is not a contest.

There are numerous credible interconnect cables, each with strengths and weaknesses. They all represent the designer's subjective "ideal sound", or perhaps the "best compromise". Any of these cables would be right to some people and less so to other. My hope is that the X-2 strikes a decent compromise for the majority of listeners, but it is yet to be seen...

That is precisely why I appreciate an honest review such as yours. Keep up the good work!

 

[skullguise]

Great review, Mark!

I have been enjoying the X-2's for some time now. I tend to agree with your assesment, but I found even less "observational objections" (not "issues"

) than you, at least in my system.

I'm wondering if the cables sound different enough in certain systems. I've stated that before, as some folks seem to hear VERY different sounds (this more in reference to the X-1 vs UR5/6 comparisons).

One of the great tests for soundstage for me is Alison Kraus & Union Station Live. I have the SACD/CD Hybrid of this, as well as the DVD Video. I can listen to things, and then view the DVD to check on spatial cues.

Oddly enough, I found that the SACD layer seems to accentuate the soundstage height and depth, and the CD layer gets it right. This is based on my observations both aural and visual. In all cases, the X-2 rendered the height consistently. I have heard other cables, for example some Acoustic Zen's, overdo the soundstage depth so it seems.

I also found the X-2 to be very detailed, and as you mention, slightly soft. In comparing them to the X-1's, it's almost like the X-1's are untamed, and the X-2's more coherent. I don't call the X-1's harsh, but they definitely bring the sound right to you, fast and in your face. The X-2's do the same, with some softness but sitll with all the detail. I don't feel I lose anything though.

One important thing you note in your messages is how you value a large soundstage. For me, it is less important (I prefer transparency and tonality first and foremost). And this (along with my thoughts on system interaction and voicing) will play a part in preferences. I'm glad you mention yours, as it gives other folks a measuring stick for your observations. IE, if they value the same things you do, they may prefer something else. Folks who have PM'd me regarding cables I have or have heard get the same answer: it depends on wha your values are, and what your system sounds like.

So thanks again, I and others appreciate the time and care you spend. I have found your observations VERY valuable, espeically wiht the power cord comparison you did. Keep up the great work!

Thanks,

Todd - skullguise

 

[bordins]

I would like to add my observation regarding bass responses of the X-2. I find it just-about-right at any level of loudness. Keeping the right balance between details and responses.

You did a very nice analytical analysis about the X-2's, but I think putting everything you described back together is what exactly the X-2 is. The whole is not the sum of its parts !

Great review Mark, BTW.

 

[ootput]

A pleasurable read, Mark. Thanks pal

 

[jrisles]

MarkL ... i thoroughly enjoyed reading your review on the X-2 interconnects. Just like the description of the cable your review was well balanced & well articulated.

Thank You for taking the time.

regards
Jeff

 

[eyeteeth]

I had an x2 for a bit more than a year and have quoted those things which ring a bell with me. On a personal note I initially was really gee whizzed by the x1 and was very vocal about it on headfi. Following my public enthusiasm, ori asked if I would like to be a dealer of his cables. I entertained the idea for sometime but could not shake the feelings of internal conflict between being an independent minded enthusiast of audio and a dealer. It was with great relief that I backed away from the idea...although I still feel a twinge of shame when I recall how my genuine innocent enthusiasm ran into an offer that I briefly accepted. Thankfully, for my own peace of mind, I never did say much about the x2.

I can't see how I can give my honest appraisal of this cable without an honest account of myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Retail Price $799 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.

I was always very nervous even handling the x2 given how very fragile it seemed in combination with its too tightly gripping connectors (30 cent switchcraft RCA I believe). I came to consider it of poor quality and discontinued its use altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please note I am EXAGGERATING the differences between the two cables to make the picture of each clearer and more vivid for the reader.

That's what I've found with my own comparisons. In bending to the task of seeking differences I can come up with descriptions of two different cables and two different sounds but the reality (blind listening) is of maybe a 5% difference and inability to identify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO, the X-2 very subtly and pleasantly rolls the high highs, and the low lows without choking the sound. 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? 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.

My preference in audio is for a warts and all, let the chips fall where they may honesty from components-maximum transparency. And this is especially true of a cable, "get out way!" The x2 did seem to be the most editorializing cable I've used in being soft focus, vague, distant. After much trial and error with "audiophile" cables which seem to lose transparency with their obligatory (gotta justify the price) use of unusual materials or construction, I ended up happiest with the no-nonsense Blue Jeans' LC-1 at 1/25th the price. In terms of straight uncolored transparency, resolution and tonal balance it is the superior cable. If transparency isn't your thing, there's always mid-fi gear.

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth /img/forum/go_quote.gif My preference in audio is for a warts and all, let the chips fall where they may honesty from components-maximum transparency. And this is especially true of a cable, "get out way!" The x2 did seem to be the most editorializing cable I've used in being soft focus, vague, distant. After much trial and error with "audiophile" cables which seem to lose transparency with their obligatory (gotta justify the price) use of unusual materials or construction, I ended up happiest with the no-nonsense Blue Jeans' LC-1 at 1/25th the price. In terms of straight uncolored transparency, resolution and tonal balance it is the superior cable. If transparency isn't your thing, there's always mid-fi gear.

You like the Blue Jeans' LC1 more than either X-1 or X-2 cable? I will have to look up a review you may have written about the. PM me if you have a time or I may just come after you with a PM

Thanks!!!

 

[eyeteeth]

Yes I like the LC-1 more than the x1 or x2. Go ahead and pm me, you'll join Mmakshak and bordins who have also pmed me on things oritek, and both of whom I've ignored.

I've written no review of the LC-1 nor will I write one of it or any other piece of audio apparatus. I've found that trying to hear, as is the situation when writing a review, results in incorrect conclusions for psycho-acoustical reasons.

I also don't care enough about this thoroughly joyless subject to waste my time when I'd rather be listening to music, making a tea or practicing clear annunciation of the alphabet in preparation for any possible future belching competitions.

 

[laxx]

I love your reviews. But my comment goes out to Ori, I think you need a new website. The images you're using for links are just hideous.

 

[neilvg]

I just ran across this thread... even though it is from over a year ago.

Anyway, Ori let me try out his X-2 cables a while back. I was using Virtual Dynamics Revelation and Masters cables before. According to Ori, his cable would definitely be a "VD Killer".

I figured with a statement like that, it doesn't hurt to try 'em! After all, more flexible and much smaller cables would be very nice if they did indeed sound as good as my reference VD cables.

Anyway, long story short, I completely agree with everything Markl has said. The X-2 came across to be a very warm, and melloe sounding cable. It had a very natural and polite sound. I can see this cable as a good choice for people who have a system that is slightly on the strident, or grainy side. Although it is true, this cable will not add lushness, but it does give off a very relaxed feel.

Did it beat my VD's? Answer: I gave Ori back his very excellent X-2 cables. I will be sticking with VD it seems.

Neil

 

[Nardin]

I do not doubt for a second that you don't hear a difference, however that difference may well be the result of observer-expectancy bias, placebo effect or whatever you're inclined to call it.

IMO, when people hear a differences between cables unsupported by independent confirmation, one cannot logically claim that listener bias is not affecting the results, anymore than one can claim that the perceived sonic differences are due to cable attributes which have been unconfirmed by independent observers.