Hello Rx8man,
I have used VD UltraClear, 'regular' CT-1, and the enhanced. There was nothing specific that was better going to the CT-1E, but EVERYTHING was just noticeably better. I would not have believed it, since the jump from regular copper/silver/gold/OCC interconnect cables to CT-1 was a big jump for me, but the new conductor, new pin (which I think may be the biggest contributor to the improvement), and new treatment all apparently make for more detail, bass, midrange, treble, clarity, less noise, and just plain more music.
For those fortunate to be getting CT-1 speaker cables (Calloway, I can only imagine how good your system will sound!), I am envious. |
The initial 'dull' sounding impressions may be due to the lowering of noise. Noise, as opposed to the intended signal, sounds 'louder' than music of the same measured dB level.
So if you reduce noise levels, you are reducing the APPARENT loudness of the transmitted signal by more than just the drop in noise level.
This is why noise is added (or at least used to be) added to radio signals so that the station 'sounded louder' when changing stations in the car. It is also why live music, even when at high SPLs, does not present itself as loud as for reproduced music with more noise at the same SPL.
The thing that really sealed it for me was when I changed to UltraClear/CT-1 cables from other cables and would stand up to lift the tonearm at the end of a song. When I first changed cables I would go over to the TT when I was expecting the song to be over and I would hear an additional 5 seconds of low-level music coming through the speakers that I hadn't heard before. The CT-1 cables allowed more music to come through, whether through a reduction in noise or the ability to transmit lower level signals better than IC cables from the usual companies. |
Hello tbg, Your observations regarding sound levels differs from mine. I found that the CT-1 cables increased the sound level I heard, but, of course, my system differs from yours.
Depending on the input and output impedences, and the voltage levels being transmitted, the increased resistance of the CT-1 conductor (compared to pure copper/silver/gold/aluminum) might be causing your drop in sound level.
Your impressions on noise levels is consistent with what I hear. I can only imagine how little noise would exist with CT-1 speaker cables along with the IC cables. |
I actually found that the high frequencies (especially cymbals) were immediately clearer with the CT-1, compared to other IC cables. Using a quick switch, with an audiophile buddy also comparing, we found that cymbals were 'splashy' with the other IC cables, but more clear and distinct, more like live music, with the CT-1. If you think you may have heard more treble with your previous cables, try listening again and possibly you were hearing more treble volume, but only because of sloppy transients and high frequency hash.
And yes... the CT-1E is, as hard as it was for me to believe, noticeably better than the regular CT-1. |
Re: Unshielded Phono
I need an unshielded CT-1(E) cable since the RS-Labs tonearm just rests on a blue polymer pad, it is not bolted/fastened to an armboard. For this reason, if you have heavy cables or stiff cables the cables can (sometimes due to stray fingers or hands) cause the RS-Labs tonearm to flip off the armboard and onto the floor. This happened with another, even earlier 'prototype CT-1' cable.
Ideally I would have a shielded phono cable, but since my turntable is in the basement, I have not had any RF noise issues. With any other tonearm, I would definitely get a CT-1E phono cable, shielding and all.
Truly,
JA |
As posted previsously in this thread, I had been waiting for updated 'prototype' RCA-RCA phono cables.
I finally got my 'low-mass' CT-1E phono. This was specially made for the RS Labs tonearm, which only sits on the armboard, so heavy phono cables will tip the arm.
I originally had some BIS cables, which were a stop-gap measure. When I went to Hovland MGII tonearm cables, I thought that was a huge improvement.
Rick later made up some prototype phono cables for me, which were some of the first cables using the conductor now used in the CT-1E cables. It used the older VD UltraClear connectors, but it was so much better than the MGII, especially in base response, which has been noted as one of the shortcomings of the Hovland. (Although it is still an excellent cable, especially at the price when it was available.) The 'prototype' CT-1/UC cables were great.
My latest cables are also unshielded, but use the latest connectors. The conductor is the same.
These cables were eerily quiet when I dropped the needle. I first thought something was wrong there was such a reduction in what I thought was phono-pre/amp/speaker hiss.
When the music started I first thought that the cables were slightly better than the ones with the VD connector, not as much improvement as I expected, although this was early in the first song. But then the kick drum came in, which had waaayyy more impact, and sounded more real than the last time I played this record. (Shawn Colvin, Steady On, Columbia LP) Not necessarily louder, but the feeling of the drum being really thumped. Then I was noticing more instruments in the background, and more singers, and more music.
The eery lack of noise took some getting used to, but once I got used to it, and stopped trying to listen to differences, I found the music so much more relaxing and touching.
And this was due to changing connectors. Great job, Rick. |
After more listening to my custom 'low-mass' CT-1E phono cable on my RS Labs tonearm, I now have to add that the cable has removed some of the grit I thought was part of the recordings. Again, this adds to the enjoyment of the music, and allows me to enjoy more records more often, and for longer. |
Hello Nic10pin,
For the CT-1 and CT-1E you can go shorter. I had Rick make me a special set of 0.75 m unshielded CT-1E phono cables for my RS Labs tonearm. The technology for the CT-1E includes an upgraded conductor (which is actually slightly more flexible that the regular CT-1) and better connectors, especially for the pin.
Enjoy. |
Hello Snook,
As noted earlier in this post (which has gotten quite long), I received a custom, light-weight CT-1E phono cable for my RS Labs tonearm. It replaced an earlier custom HF phono cable (with earlier-generation connectors), which had, in turn replaced a Hovland MGII phono.
I never had to change anything. The sound just got better with each upgrade in cable. When the day comes that one of the kids knocks the RS Labs tonearm off the stand and breaks the built-in tonearm cabling, I will definitely have Rick re-wire the tonearm so I can go ALL the way from the cartridge to the speakers with HF cables.
JA |
While I expected that the CT-1U would be better than the CT-1E, I was slightly skeptical about how much people who have heard both thought the CT-1U was better. I knew that CT-1E was noticeably better than CT-1, but what some people were stating seemed potentially like hyperbole.
Well, I just replaced the IC cables between my phono-pre and preamp, using CT-1U instead of an early set of CT-1E. Other IC cables in the chain to amp are still CT-1E, but the way the new cables created more 'space' around each voice and instrument, along with a slight lowering of noise (since even the CT-1 has an amazingly low noise contribution), and more bass definition, was truly ear-opening. Songs I had thoroughly enjoyed before were captivating me more than I ever thought possible.
I am no longer a skeptic about how Rick has made each step up in IC cables sound markedly better. Previous posters are correct... don't listen to CT-1U/UR if you can't keep them. |
Percentage, not percentage points.
I've seen the test results. The reduction was 14 % of the existing/measured THD. So... it dropped from something like 0.2 % to 0.172 %, which is a reduction in THD of 14 %.
Please note that these aren't the exact numbers, just similar to what I recall. |
Hello RLawry,
I found that going from Hovland MGII up to CT-1 between my tonearm and phono-pre was a huge improvement, and going from CT-1 to CT-1E was also a big jump, but not as big as going from Hovland to CT-1. I would imagine going from CT-1 to CT-1U would be a very noticeable improvement.
As posted earlier, when I went from CT-1E to CT-1U between Phono-pre and pre the improvement was much bigger than I thought possible. If I had the money, I would make the upgrade, but I'm awaiting my CT-1 speaker cables to finally make my whole system HF, so that's where my upgrade budget went (along with more LPs).
JA |
I finally got my CT-1 speaker cables broken in. Like others, I noticed I had to turn up the volume on my preamp to get the same volume, likely due to the increased impedance compared to my Acoustic Zen Satori Shotgun Biwire (which are great cables themselves).
Unlike when I put in the HFC interconnect cables, there was not an immediate quantum improvement in performance. Sure, there was more detail for the most part, but the bass was weak, and overall maybe not as 'musical' as the AZ cables. After about 250-400 hours, however, I think I am finally getting the full-loom HFC effect. NOW I'm getting more music, and I'm noticing how the musicians are playing more, and getting drawn into the music even more.
So, I would say that while the HFC PC and IC cables were an instant improvement (but also continue to improve over several hundred hours), the speaker cables really need a long break-in period before they work anywhere close to their best. |
With three kids doing hockey, soccer, and cycling, I don't get as much regular listening to music as I'd like. (Falling asleep at 10pm after coming back from practice, after leading a training ride is becoming an all too common occurrence.)
I have noticed, however, that with the HF cables (power/IC/speaker) it seems like my system no longer takes about 30 minutes to warm up to the point that it is sounding really smooth, as it used to with my other cables before adding the HF cables. Anyone else notice this, or is it just me? |
Re: Phono Cables
I don't have a current HFC phono cable, but I do have one of the first phono cables Rick made with the conductor used in the current CT-1E and CT-1U. It uses an older VD UltraClear connector, and without shielding, so the newer CT-1E would apparently be a significant improvement. But...
I had previously used a Hovland MGII Rca-Rca phono cable with my RS Labs arm. I had found the MGII cable to be significantly better than any other cable I had tried (albeit not with any >$1000 cables). When I put in the 'prototype' CT-1 phono cable the difference was incredibly noticeable. More weight, more detail, more realistic, a greater ability to appreciate the music, and more emotion coming through the music. So I found the 'test version' of the CT-1 to be much better than the MGII, and the new connector should make an even bigger difference with a 'real' CT-1E phono.
I am hoping to get a non-shielded CT-1E phono cable (Darn those RS Labs tonearms that just rest on the armboard, so the cables can't be stiff!), so I can report back later.
JA |
Hello Acman3,
If you are in an area without much RF noise/interference, check with a local dealer (or with HF directly) about getting the 'RS-Labs tonearm Special' phono cable. Rick made up a non-shielded version of the CT-1E for me a few years ago that is incredibly lightweight and not stiff at all, compared to the regular CT-1/CT-1E phono cables. I use it and it does not 'flip' the RS Labs tonearm at all. I find the Magnetic Conduction to work especially well with low-level signals, so this might be the best option for you.
(The phono cable I use now replaced a prototype unshielded I got from Rick, which in turn replaced a Hovland MGII. Each cable was a significant upgrade in performance over the previous phono cable.)
JA |
I have been using Rick Shultz's cables since they were Virtual Dynamics, and even still have a 'magnetic'/Everclear VD power cable with the technology used in the High Fidelity cables.
Each time I've upgraded I always hear 'more'. More music, more emotion, more detail. I've gone from Everclear to CT-1, to CT-1E, to CT-1 Ultimate, with power cables, ICs, and speaker cables. Each addition brought more music.
However, I finally got a power distributor, the MC-6, along with two of the MC0.5. I only installed the MC-6, with my TT power supply, the preamp, and disc player into it, but even though I should no longer be surprised by the increase in music when adding the magnetic cables, I was, again.
Amazing. Congratulations, Rick!
I'll add the MC0.5s next week.
On a side note, there is a repost in a big magazine website of a review of Lindsey-Geyer cables from the early 1990's, where they used conductors similar to what HF is using, but without the applied magnetism. Lot's of cool background info on skin effect depth, etc., that might explain why HF cables sound so good (to me).
|
