EMM Lab DCC2 & CDSD Better connection?

So much for letting one's ears decide. This cable has been trashed and discredited before even being produced. Amazing.

What's going to happen when someone actually hears it, writes a thread here about how amazing it is, and then everyone else goes running out to get one. We shall see.

I don't own a CDSD, I'm still using the old Philips SACD 1000 with my DCC2. After a year of running the combo with the recommended orange ST Glass cables from EMM, I decided to try an AES/EBU cable (an inexpensive one from Cardas that was leant to me).
Well, what do you know! I guess I'll need the little orange cables for SACD but I'll never use them again on Redbook.
Rather than going into detail about how the Cardas sounds better than the glass cable, I'll just say that it does everything thing a little better and everything from the midrange down, a whole lot better.
Maybe my glass cables are defective in some way?
Maybe the Philips reacts differently than the CDSD?
The improvement is way too obvious for others not to have picked up on.
I can't wait to try one of the highly-touted digital cables.
Thanks Alex.

Alex,

Your comment does not surprise me. As I stated earlier in this thread, my dealer has been recommending AES/EBU connection over the ST cables for a long time.

Since my last comment, I have had a chance to personally compare the AES/EBU intefrace to ST one on my friends CDSD/DCC2 combo (the rest of his system consists of big Canary Audio monoblocks that use 4x300B tubes, Peak Consult Emperor speakers, Stereovox top of the range spk cables, Hydra 8 and all power cords from Shunyata).

We have used Nordost Valhalla AES/EBU cable and as you said - it betters the OE ST cables in every respect. Interestingly, we both feeled that the biggest difference was in the highs, which were even more extended.

I have found that locking the signal of the EMM DAC 6e w. the Philips to the Philips produced much better sound than slaving the Philips to the EMM DAC 6e. I then thought maybe the ST cables were defective. I then did compare them w. the new cables supplied w. my CDSD and found that the new cables were much better but still the sound was better w. the SACD 1000 as a master to the DAC 6e. Still the CDSD is much better than the SACD 1000 on CD. Not on SACD. In the case of SACD it is only slightly better. The CDSD upsamples SACD to 2 times & outputs it to the DAC 6e. The CDSD upsamples CD to 4 times & outputs it. I didn't ask EMM if this is via the only select inputs or if the SACD 1000 does the same. They mentioned w. the CDSD they were able to design a transport from the ground up to do exactly what they want it to do. I asked them what? They replied in reference to the oversampling. I assume the SACD 1000 does not oversample the outputed digital signal. I also know that they can do a ROM update that will change the sampling algorithm on the CDSD.

I never compared the AES/EBU to the ST cables but they are very emphatic about the glass cables being superior. They also felt using any gels etc. can ruin the sound.

I wonder if the oversampled signal is output via the AES/EBU output. If not then this could explain the difference & your dislike for the oversampled signal.

Also running the AES/EBU on the Philips SACD 1000 elminates the ability to slave the SACD 1000 to the DAC 6e. This might be a similar change to my experience. It might be that the sound w. the SACD 1000 running as the Master is superior. This again might also be the situation w. the CDSD but I haven't experimented here yet. Maybe I will, but I am spinning vinyl these days.

Dgad,
Thank you for your reply. I hope to get a CDSD in very soon. I'll be sure to experiment with the cables.