Balanced digital...I have always thought it was my less favourite digital type connection. There were few times I have compared the same cable with different connectors (BNC , XLR and RCA) and for digital applications I ended up accepting the RCA choice as my favourite one. But it was just with a couple of transports and DACs.
It is true that in hifi we can say what actually work for our systems, but we tend up to project what it worked up for a certain system also for future systems. And this could be a mistake. Recently I had spare time left for my experiments and I wanted to try digital cables again, in the old school connection drive dac.
I have got in my hands two Wireworld fairly new offering; the Micro Eclipse Platinum and the Micro Eclipse both 8 version.
I have started with the Eclipse. It replaced in one of my systems, a cable costing 3 times more and even though it was not largely better it was better nevertheles! It was just more honest and expecially everything was better proportioned. When I talk about proportions I don't talk just about space development but timbre, timing and so on. The proportion of all the musical igredients was more honest, more wisely balanced even though if maybe less seductive on the very short exposition to it.
The Micro Eclipse 8 cable sound is one of no real personality. Nothing stands out when you listen to it. It is not evidently more focused or evidently quiter, or bright, neither dark, or evidently more something else. The only thing that you can listen in these lack of personality traits is the missing of some electronic haze, or kind of electric things going around and inside the instruments. And it is difficult to explain, but it is also present in many Wireworld products. Maybe is this the triboelectrique noise of which Wireworld is talking about in its philosophy of design?
I ended up being impressed by it. So I was expecting a lot more from its Platinum version,even though Wireworld affirms differences between these cables are mild, and... yes, I was expecting too much and Wireworld statement was right. The Platinum did everything the Eclipse did just a little better. The only thing that actually did that the Eclipse version could not do was portraying the colour of the space around the instruments. In the Eclipse version the space is very silent but has no colors. In every recording is very silent but is very the same. Not so in the Platinum version. This caracteristic brought to a strange phenomenon: the perceived, "immediate" contrast between instruments,was more evident with the Eclipse then with the Platinum. When the musical message is simpler it often happens. But the Platimun has better timbres, it has better layering, it is more relaxed, it is better focused, you have more things going on even though many of them are not musically essentials. So my conclusion in this very short review is that musically they are both on the same level. The emotion they can bring to the listener are more or less the same, but the Platimum gives you more information about something that sometimes can be nice to have. But even thought the Platinum is evidently mildly better then the Eclipse, the Eclipse is the king of balance. With the Eclipse after you get accustumed to it, you don't feel the need you would like something better, with the Platinum this does not happen. And this is not because the Eclipse is more musical and the Platinum does better the hifi tricks. As I said before both have the same degree of musicality. So you say it is better staying with the Eclipse...if you have both and you compare both this won't be possible since the Eclipse is mildly better so when you go back to the Eclipse you feel you have lost something. This something lost is most on the low spectrum. It is more developped in the Platinum and I guess it is for this reason that the Platinum caries more information about space.
Maybe there is a threshold that when reached you just need more of it and you don't even know why. The Platinum reach this treshold, the point when things start getting more real and gives you the desire to have more. The Eclipse does not reach this level of psycological contamination or push. It's just a good boy. It is very strange getting to this conclusion since the two cables are really very close if not for the more bass development of the Platinum and its more grounded sound. Even the resolution is extremely close.
I ended up being impressed by it. So I was expecting a lot more from its Platinum version,even though Wireworld affirms differences between these cables are mild, and... yes, I was expecting too much and Wireworld statement was right. The Platinum did everything the Eclipse did just a little better. The only thing that actually did that the Eclipse version could not do was portraying the colour of the space around the instruments. In the Eclipse version the space is very silent but has no colors. In every recording is very silent but is very the same. Not so in the Platinum version. This caracteristic brought to a strange phenomenon: the perceived, "immediate" contrast between instruments,was more evident with the Eclipse then with the Platinum. When the musical message is simpler it often happens. But the Platimun has better timbres, it has better layering, it is more relaxed, it is better focused, you have more things going on even though many of them are not musically essentials. So my conclusion in this very short review is that musically they are both on the same level. The emotion they can bring to the listener are more or less the same, but the Platimum gives you more information about something that sometimes can be nice to have. But even thought the Platinum is evidently mildly better then the Eclipse, the Eclipse is the king of balance. With the Eclipse after you get accustumed to it, you don't feel the need you would like something better, with the Platinum this does not happen. And this is not because the Eclipse is more musical and the Platinum does better the hifi tricks. As I said before both have the same degree of musicality. So you say it is better staying with the Eclipse...if you have both and you compare both this won't be possible since the Eclipse is mildly better so when you go back to the Eclipse you feel you have lost something. This something lost is most on the low spectrum. It is more developped in the Platinum and I guess it is for this reason that the Platinum caries more information about space.
Maybe there is a threshold that when reached you just need more of it and you don't even know why. The Platinum reach this treshold, the point when things start getting more real and gives you the desire to have more. The Eclipse does not reach this level of psycological contamination or push. It's just a good boy. It is very strange getting to this conclusion since the two cables are really very close if not for the more bass development of the Platinum and its more grounded sound. Even the resolution is extremely close.
I have compared these two cables with few others that I like and if I have to say something I have learnt about them this would be : The Importance of being Earnest. If you know this Oscar Wilde comedy you know what I mean...
And this is a secret: in a very well balanced system, a system that is done as a project not as a balancing act of components that you presumed you liked and that expecially does not simplify things in favour of a musicality that you could achieve with much less money, 110 Ohm Digital is better. I would like to develop a little more the sentence " that does not simplify things that much in favour of musicality". It is true that there are systems that are expensive and musical at the same time, and this is not always the case since many times are just expensive, loooks good, can go loud but are better at looking then at listening, and others that are cheap and musical. The cheap ones achive musicality easier since the musical message they give you is very simplified. But, I say BUT, when you start spending an important amount of money you want the message to be as much complex and full of informations as possible remaining musical at the same time. And this is rare. Many times, unfortunately you get the same resolution and sometimes more in fairly cheap integrated amplifier of good pedigree then in expensive separate pre - power combos. Ok, then the combos have more dynamic headroom and have better this and better that but when I can hear details with a cheap integrated that are lost in the big boys this does not makes me feel confortable. For this reason there is a limit for every maker. When I hear a very expensive component that is also very famous and that is also very musical but that has the resolving power of a cheap one I... hate it. There are too many of this kind of components out there, also very, very famous ones. Of course the first thing is being musical, but not the musicality of a cheap car stereo only with more dynamic headroom...
This is the very deep reason why few British makers had success. They were keeping the musical message simple. They were doing the essential right. If they are not expensive it is ok, but when you want more, more does not means just bigger sound. And the most difficult thing to get right is timbre, that misteriously, very misteriously is often lost in the connection between elements, so it is "missing in cables".
To get back to Wireworld: I feel this maker would deserve much, much more attention that it already have. You won't probably like if you buy only one of its products, since they are tailored just to be honest. And an hifi chain is based on lies. But you have just to sort out the bad lies and keep the good ones in. Wireworld let you focus on the bad lies of other components. If you accept it you can do great thing with them.
But remember to keep the good lier in your chain, if not you are not going to enjoy it.
