W and M Interconnects

"I find it hard to believe that you have an EE degree and you are designing software protocols for computer chips. It does not make since to me."

Then you obviously have no experience in embedded software. Embedded software engineers tend to come from either an EE background or computer science. Embedded software is actually a mix of EE and computer science. The best embedded software team will comprise members with EE degrees and members with computer science degrees.

The power transfer of USB is, as Herman points out, irrelevant. The USB power is transferred on a separate pin, carrying 5vDC. I would not expect any quality USB dac to use this power supply, partly because it is polluted with noise, and partly because it can only supply a couple of watts, which is insufficient. I suspect that it is left open circuit (not connected) on most all USB DACs, and that the DAC has its own separate power supply.

The high speed packetized nature is COMPLETELY RELEVANT, because it means that a USB DAC MUST buffer and reclock the data stream to the DAC, unlike an SPDIF based DAC which can attempt to regenerate its DAC clock from the SPDIF datastream. We all know that using SPDIF for the DAC master clock makes the DAC subject to the jitter in the transport, and is generally regarded as an outdated design. Since USB must reclock this weakness is removed.

So the computer can read data with zero errors, USB will transfer with zero errors, and the data is buffered and reclocked before being presented to the DAC chips ... it sounds like a formula for excellent digital sound. Of course it can be ruined in the execution, but then so can any one box or two box CD player.

We are holding off for a short while on the CD player. We stepped sideways, and slightly up, in "convenient listening" instead. We purchased a "Polk XRt12" XM Radio receiver. We both like it quite a bit, but I can't in "true conscience" call it a "higher end" device. I do not believe that it is a suitable unit for "sorting out" the smaller differences between cables and other gear (at least for the benefit of helping "others" decide on their values, pro and con).
I do notice, however, that the "W and M" cables have a "easy" and "relaxed" presence to them. I have switched back and forth, between some of my other cables, trying to actually "shed" some of that.

Other cables at hand:
* AudioQuest (older, unreadable model)
* MIT 330
* DH Labs BH 2 (Liar's Silver)
* Monster 950 and 1000
* Tranaparent Interlink
The cable listed should not even be in the same league as the W and M. However, "all" have their "individual" positive and negative qualiies.

It is in the "midrange" that they are fairly laid back (not at all "veiled", because the "nuances" are there). They seem very polite and nonirritating. With the new "Onix SP-3" (that is metric TON of "Bloom" and comfortable "tube" sound) coupled with the notoriously "laid back" Genesis 400's, I'm drowning in audio "Whipped Cream".

So far:

* Strong and Heavy low end.
* Reticent, very "polite" midrange
* Very extended, "silky" top end.
* Transparent

The W and M cables are open and extended, allowing the bloom and ease of the "Tubes" (5881/6L6GC X4 .... 12AX7WB x2 .... 6922/6DJ8 x2 .... 12AU7 x2) to show through. They seem to allow the sound qualities of the equipment (that I have now) to show though very well. Images are placed just about where they should be (by past recollection of my older gear and what I can obtain from the existing system). There is a bunch of smearing due to the lack of good input (kinda goes without saying, I quess). Definition and resolution are lacking as well (ditto).

* Note:
I had a bit of a problem w/ imaging earier. It is somewhat resolved. With some different placement of the speakers and the realization that my "front end" sucks, I must live with this little delema for a while.

Positives that stand out:

A Wonderful "top to bottom" response and transparency (yes, I know, "How can YA tell.. Well, there are some notes, at some times that "do" happen and the cable doesn't stop it).

Negatives that stand out:

A bit "too" laid back" for my system (as it stands). "Nothing" that I throw at it (short of FM static) is irritating. Perhaps a "plus" to some" but it tells me that "something, somewhere" is missing (where's my old Klipsch and Sure V15x3 when I need them)

We have Half Asked decided on a new "Onix XCD-99" (for next months CD expenditure). Nothing but good has been said about it (so far) and I just love the Onix SP-3 Integrated amp (maybe just a bit more power would be nice).

I am anxious to get on with more info (to myself, and all A'goners) about what these W and M cables are capable of.

Moron all this later :-)

Tubby

I have pulled the W and M (interconnects) out and replaced it with some StraightWire Encore. I had normally reserved the StraightWire for systems that had a harder or harsher quality. With the Polk XRt12 XM recv'r, the sound is more open, has more life and the imaging is better. There is most certainly a synergy between the Polk unit and the StaightWire that I cannot get from any of the other cables. The Polk is cleanly set up and placed on Tip-Toes. I have treated as a "Hi-End" device. Vibration, heat nor associated interference is not an issue. The W and M interconnects only seem superior in one area, and that is their ability to transfer an deep, clean and tight low end.

More later.......

Tubby

It is truly unfortunate that I write these words about the "W and M" Interconnects.
*
It is my belief (for reasons purely related to synergy) that the "W and M" interconnects cannot relate (within my current system) the sonic character that I was hoping for.
*
A moment out (for those that desire) to lap your slobbering chops and roll about.

Changing cables (with all of the intensity and reluctance that Medusa combs her hair), I have made a decision on the sonic character of the "W and M" Interconnects. With the W and M Cables installed, my system lacks an overall sense of "Life" and "Pace". Replacing the "W and M's" (with selected others) brings the "Life" and "Pace" back into being. In "defense" of the "W and M" cables, the others are somewhat void of the positive attributes that the "W and M" cables do have (with spades).

ie:
* Truly marvelous "top to bottom" response.
* Open and transparent midrange.
* Deep and wide soundstage.

These "W and M" cables (imho) would work very well in a high end system that needs some "edge" taken off of it. I have (a few times) searched for cable like this and would have truly liked to have had them. The resulting purchases have mostly been cables that were "Dead" or "Wanted" to be. Some of them, I did, (out of pity).. euphonize.

*
The "W and M" SPEAKER Cable (on the other hand) is some of the "best" that I have ever used. Fortunately, I do have a few types of cable and I have made some comparisons. The "W and M" SPEAKER Cable sounds a bit like a cable that I "DO" know (and like); the "Harmonic Technology" (with a just a touch of "JPS" thrown in).
Nice stuff....... A +

*
Perhaps it is that the "W and M" Interconnects just do not work well with TUBES (or perhaps just "some" tubes). Perhaps they just do not work well in a "relaxed" system... Anyhow, I'm weary of dinking around with it. Off to the closet.... (where "did" I put that FANCY box ?)

Tubby

Hi,

Where do W&M cables come from? I can find no website for the manufacturer, no reviews in magazines, no retail or web outlet? The only nplace I have found them is on ebay and other autction sites.Therefore who is buying this stuff without having any background on the cable or the company, the cables performace etc?

Thanks

Dave