Trcnetmsncom wrote:
Valhalla can show just how colored other cables are. I don't find Valhalla at all lean, I think it just exposes all the muck other cables impose on the sound. It's too neutral for its own good. Resolution galore!!!
After doing a bunch of listening, I'm going to have to say that you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I tried the Anaconda Helix Alpha and Valhalla in every possible position in my system, and came away with these impressions:
The Anaconda has better low-bass performance, probably due to it's greater gauge. Other than that, the Valhalla betters it in every respect. I know that seems like a bold statement, so let me elaborate. I have a DSP that allows me to make frequency corrections, and I primarily use it to correct for poor recordings. It does come in handy in evaluating system changes, because I can use it to nearly nullify differences between components and cables. Looking at these corrections often gives a window into what each cable is doing sonically. In this case, the Anaconda required some boosting in the midrange and presence regions to give it a naturalness when listening to vocals, specifically female vocals, which sounded a bit too 'chesty' with the Anaconda. The Anaconda seems to feature a bit of a dip in the middle, which makes it seem more extended upon first listening, but also introduces some excess emphasis in the upper midrange and treble, which can sound a bit like a hint of digititis after extended listening.
The Valhalla, simply put, is neutral from the midbass upwards. I can't help but suspect that it would be perfect if it was slightly heavier in gauge, but that's just speculation on my part. When listening with the Valhalla in the system, I found that I could essentially 'zero-out' my DSP frequency settings on most recordings, even on some I'd previously thought to be a bit hi-fi-ish in production. Along with this neutrality came an organic ease that made recordings less fatiguing. Not rolled-off or smoothed-out, just 'natural'. It seems the brain just accepts what it hears more easily when the fundamentals and harmonics mesh naturally. (That's my take on it at least). What I hadn't expected from the Valhalla, given it's lighter gauge, was an increase in dynamic contrasts in the midrange. When vocalists moved closer to the mic, there was a sometimes startling increase in volume and proximity to the listener within the soundstage. I simply felt as though I was hearing more of what the recording engineer must have heard in the studio. This effect was heard both on high and low current components. Surpisingly, all these sonic effects were more clearly obvious on my small monitors than on my full-range speakers. I had expected the Anaconda to sound better on the bass-shy small speakers, but instead the midrange 'suck-out' of the Anaconda was more obvious when not masked by the thundering bass of the big speakers. With the Valhalla, the small monitors just sounded terrific; like big loudspeakers, minus the low-bass.
Of course, if you have speakers that are bass-shy, and also feature a prominent midrange, you might not like the overall effect of the Valhalla, but I'd blame that on your speakers. As a foundation for a system, I'd say the Valhalla is nearly ideal. I'd also like to add that this is the first time I've ever auditioned a Nordost product that I wanted to keep, so I'm no Nordost fanboy.
The only problem I have is, how do I 'spin' the price of the Valhalla with the wife? :(
