- Thread Author
- #1
old quip is that if you lose it at the source, you can never get it back. so getting as much from your source is paramount.
i'd have preferred to not upgrade my digital cable from my existing I2s (which my transport & DAC are optimized for). --trouble with I2S seems twofold: 1) its not meant for long distances like 1meter, and 2) the # of implementations (from which grows collective wisdom & optimization) is de minimus. --unlike SPDIF, which is ubiquitous.
what really got me was a call with Richard (?) at Shunyata, who stated that in importance, cabling goes:
AC
Digital
Speaker
IC
--my personal experience finds that statement totally accurate.
so off into my local dealer for a few to compare:
Synergistic Galileo via a friend
Nordost Valhalla 2
SR Sigma v2
Omega v2
quickly, i excluded the nordost. marginal improvement vs I2s. and it was the most expensive cable. ---i found their position of using adapters to be nonsense (termination is BNC, then adapted to RCA). --there is NO connector that improves the sound. anywhere anytime.
the galileo was a nice cable, did nothing wrong and totally enjoyable, but found it slightly behind the Sigma. at $1k more expensive.
so this really came down to Sigma v Omega: what do you get and get more of for the incremental $1k?
the omega is, in short, remarkable. both cables have the same evenhandedness with tone and extension. but the omega take the noise floor slightly lower (or as audiophiles would say: remarkably lower) and this allows further detail expression in low level harmonics (i used lots of piano recordings) and recording ambiance (venue, space). think pianissimo type playing is where the distinction comes in, and what the sigma reveals, the omega reveals fully, giving a greater view into the artists interpretation / emphasis / drama.
some live recordings of richter, with the sigmas i could hear coughs in the audience i never heard before, but with omega i could hear their approximate row location vs the piano in the venue. stupid level of detail.
one other area i thought really stood out: the omega has greater dynamic expression, notably with kick drums and when piano is played percussively. not sure why. but its more as music is in real life.
if i were listening to just rock, ie something where the music was amplified and thus lacking a decay into nothingness (where space is used by the artist to build tension / drama), the sigma would be plenty, and a bargain relative to the competition.
but as i listen almost exclusively to unamplified recordings like piano sonatas (along with the occasional grateful dead / Jerry Garcia Band), nuance matters, and those decaying harmonics get me to the nothingness the artist intended so much more.
you go from listening to understanding.
the omega is a remarkably nuanced cable. i only wish the price of admission were lower.
highly recommended all the same.
i'd have preferred to not upgrade my digital cable from my existing I2s (which my transport & DAC are optimized for). --trouble with I2S seems twofold: 1) its not meant for long distances like 1meter, and 2) the # of implementations (from which grows collective wisdom & optimization) is de minimus. --unlike SPDIF, which is ubiquitous.
what really got me was a call with Richard (?) at Shunyata, who stated that in importance, cabling goes:
AC
Digital
Speaker
IC
--my personal experience finds that statement totally accurate.
so off into my local dealer for a few to compare:
Synergistic Galileo via a friend
Nordost Valhalla 2
SR Sigma v2
Omega v2
quickly, i excluded the nordost. marginal improvement vs I2s. and it was the most expensive cable. ---i found their position of using adapters to be nonsense (termination is BNC, then adapted to RCA). --there is NO connector that improves the sound. anywhere anytime.
the galileo was a nice cable, did nothing wrong and totally enjoyable, but found it slightly behind the Sigma. at $1k more expensive.
so this really came down to Sigma v Omega: what do you get and get more of for the incremental $1k?
the omega is, in short, remarkable. both cables have the same evenhandedness with tone and extension. but the omega take the noise floor slightly lower (or as audiophiles would say: remarkably lower) and this allows further detail expression in low level harmonics (i used lots of piano recordings) and recording ambiance (venue, space). think pianissimo type playing is where the distinction comes in, and what the sigma reveals, the omega reveals fully, giving a greater view into the artists interpretation / emphasis / drama.
some live recordings of richter, with the sigmas i could hear coughs in the audience i never heard before, but with omega i could hear their approximate row location vs the piano in the venue. stupid level of detail.
one other area i thought really stood out: the omega has greater dynamic expression, notably with kick drums and when piano is played percussively. not sure why. but its more as music is in real life.
if i were listening to just rock, ie something where the music was amplified and thus lacking a decay into nothingness (where space is used by the artist to build tension / drama), the sigma would be plenty, and a bargain relative to the competition.
but as i listen almost exclusively to unamplified recordings like piano sonatas (along with the occasional grateful dead / Jerry Garcia Band), nuance matters, and those decaying harmonics get me to the nothingness the artist intended so much more.
you go from listening to understanding.
the omega is a remarkably nuanced cable. i only wish the price of admission were lower.
highly recommended all the same.
