Xindak Cable Question

Thanks Brainwater.

I do have the Xindak SCD-2 and enjoy it a lot. I am no electronic engineer, but when I took the top off to see which tubes they had as stock, I noticed the layout to be very nice and could identify at least few branded parts in there, so I do not think all the parts they use are inferior. OTOH, since the SACD transports are different from CD transports, I'm not sure if they can use the "boom box" transports in SCD-2.

That being said, I do agree with you on the reliability issues. Mine refused to play CD-Rs initially and I was getting ready to send it back when it started playing few of them, especially the ones that were recorded with lower speeds (2X and 4X). Since then I have been able to play lot of CD-R (including some, the player initially refused to play!). Sounds strange, but I wonder if that was an adoptability issue.

I have decided to go for FS-Gold, probably two sets for bi-wiring. Given the price, I think it is a no-brainer.

Cheers,

Brent: Judging from what you wrote above, it would appear that you find the "lack of decay", "lack of harmonic structure", "lack of body & warmth" and the "TOO fast" sound of Nordost to rub you the wrong way. Would this be a logical deduction or am i reading too much into this? Sean
>

Brainwater, i see that you use xindak's power cables as well. How do they compare to other power cables you've tried?

Hey Sean , no , not really. I want different sounds from each of my systems. I frequently try changing different links in my three dedicated listening rooms in an attempt to simply learn how these changes sonically alter things. Tube system in one , solid state in another and a mulltichannel music system in another . Its a learning curve and since i have no outside interests { and have a lot to learn still } , it seems im doomed to such trivial pursuits. I know the concept about sound absolute and its quest but i am on various paths looking at various things. I am on a tube kick having recently purchased the Cary cad 211 anniversary monos and have found the swapping of the cables facinating and not necessarily following convential wisdom either . As to the specifics of the question..... It is entirely possible that the spm cable was a bit too lean for my tastes but the cable simply was not resolving information the Xindak easily left non obscured. The Nordost may have been a bit more accurate in its determination of musical note decay but the Xindak gold was so obviously superior in creating air around musical notes , lingering into the back of the soundstage , that I found its presentation more realistic and was subsuquently sucked into a suspension of disbelief that the Nordost simply did not give me . At least on my systems in my own experiments. On the other hand , i need and crave the lazer like accuracy of the Valhalla { which have many of the characteristics of the spm s } to realize the complex structure of high resolution mulltichannel musical playback in my Meridian - Aerial room . The speed and natural sound reproduction pave a way for the complex layering of music in that room . Lots of ways to feel about what makes you tick as a listener. All this is just my opinion and though may be totally incorrect , I feel i am able to learn faster and can therefore get better at this stuff that consumes many of us.... Glad you are back man.

Brent: Thanks for the response and clarification. I can see how Nordost's might be of value in a multi-channel music and / or HT system. They definitely sound very sharp, precise and focused, which would aid in better localization and a reduction in congestion / blending of imagery. After all, with 5+ speakers throwing sound at you from every which way, a simplified presentation will increase intelligibility.

Having said that, i found Nordost's to strip away the harmonic structure aka "density of layered sounds" that acoustic instruments produce. With less harmonic information presented, you can now concentrate on the primary notes, which now stand out and sound incredibly pronounced from one another. There is a tremendous sense of speed and detail, but it is achieved at the cost of natural musicality, warmth, body and air. To me, the Nordost is not "a bit more accurate in its determination of musical note decay", it is much poorer in this regard.

If i might read a bit into your post here, i think that you thought the same thing, but chose poor wording to convey your experiences. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to say "but the Xindak gold was so obviously superior in creating air around musical notes , lingering into the back of the soundstage , that I found its presentation more realistic and was subsuquently sucked into a suspension of disbelief that the Nordost simply did not give me". After all, if the Nordost was more accurate in harmonic structure and note decay, it would have sounded "more realistic" and "believable" as you noted with the other cable. I hope that you don't take that as criticism of what you wrote, as in a great sense, i'm agreeing with what i think you were trying to say* : )

In my experience, Nordost is a cable that helps achieve "hi-fi" type sonics / increased intelligiblity, which is great if that is what one is looking for. To me, the guys at TAS are all about "hi-fi fluff", hence their love affair with this type of presentation. To me, it is not a natural sounding cable even though it sounds very impressive when you first hear it. The fact that you chose a cable that offers greater "air" ( harmonic structure ) and density of spatial information for a 2 channel based system tells me that we are hearing similar things and desire similar sonic traits from our systems. The fact that you chose Nordost to help "reduce clutter" and "increase intelligibility" in a multi-channel presentation tells me that you've really got a good ear and sense of what goes where. Keep up the good work. Your hands-on experience seems to be paying off quite well : ) Sean
>

* If i was wrong in how i interpreted your above comments, please plant your boot firmly and spare no mercy. I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth or lead to further misinterpretation of someone else's comments.