# Audeze LCD-3. Newcomer the Toxic Silver Widow cable takes on the incumbent king the Qaudio cable and the Audeze stock cable.



## sam1e

Well folks I have had my Audeze LCD-3 for some time now and have never been truly happy with the sound, too dark I thought at first so they went back to Audeze for a check up and came back with new drivers and a new sound graph, a vast improvement giving more air to the sound and greater definition at the top which had sounded veiled before, a great sound all round but still not quite the sparkle that I wanted especially for classical music. I had been using them with Qaudio copper cable and having read so much positivity about Franks silver cables at Toxic decided to mail him with my thoughts and ask for his opinion, his response was to recommend his Silver Widow cable which duly arrived early January. So here are my thoughts on that cable with the Audeze LCD-3 compared to the stock cable and Qaudio cable.
  
A little context before I begin which will help explain my expectations, I have spent the last few years listening to a room system comprising, Meridian 800, Krell FPB amplification and B&W 801 speakers, a big, open and detailed sound of the highest quality.  I have broad musical taste but in the main female vocals, jazz blues, and classical including opera. I get to go to 20 odd live concerts a year, mainly classical but also rock, blues and jazz, I believe my ear for music to be quite good so my expectations are pretty high. I don't listen to metal, electronica or similar but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the odd track. Circumstances have pushed me towards headphones as my room system is now in storage and I have put together my rig over the past couple of years. Currently I'm listening to AIIF files created from my CD collection streamed from a NAS drive via a Sonos Connect linked to a Bel Canto V3 DAC by a DH Labs D75 coax, this in turn is connected to a Fosgate Signature headphone amp using Chord Indigo interconnects. The Fosgate is single ended (RCA) and has been tube rolled with a pair of 1950's Mullard 12AX7 long plates.
  
 (image missing)

  
I didn't buy Franks standard SW as he had the option of the cable fitted with a carbon fibre, Rhodium plated, Furutech jack and Furutech connectors at the headphones which I preferred although this did add an additional £95uk to the cost which I thought was quite a premium but I went for it because I like the quality of Furutech products, they are well made and in this case great to look at, consequently what I can't do is comment on any difference they make to the sound, if any, over the standard connectors as I have not heard those. The Qaudio has a gold plated Neutrik jack and standard Rean mini xlr at the phones, it has the cloth sheathing which has been out of production for 12 months now and has been replaced with the much classier silk sheathing, the stock cable connections are unbranded. The Toxic and Qaudio cables are similarly priced in their standard form, both are as light as a feather and comfortable to wear. The Toxic SW is beautifully put together with an eye for detail and durability. So there you have it lets get started.
  
Having given the SW cable around 80 hours burn in I set myself a rigid routine for listening based around known recordings and a set number of tracks as listed below, my choice was based on my own musical tastes but hopefully broad enough to give a full range to include depth, punch and subtlety, I ran through each cable in the same order track by track, stock, Q, SW.
  
Uranus from The Planets by Holst which is a DG recording, Karajan, Berlin Phil.
 Hunter from Bjorks album Homogenic.
 Angel Eyes from the movie soundtrack to Leaving Las Vegas, sung by Sting.
 When I Fall from Liz Wrights album Orchard.
 Goodbye Pork Pie Hat/Brush With The Blues from Performing This Week Live At Ronnie Scott's by Jeff Beck.
 Songbird by Eva Cassidy from the album Songbird.
 Bolivia'95 from Scott Walkers album Tilt.
  
I'm not going to give a track by track review as it would be too long and probably repetitive so I'm going to give my general comments with some detail. I ran the listening tests in the following order, stock, Qaudio, Toxic SW.
  
I have to say that the stock cable isn't all that bad it made a decent fist of most of the tracks especially Bjork with reasonable weight/slam and detail but what it ultimately lacked was refinement, it lost it on occasion at the top which became aggressive and sometimes edgy and it had a lack of mid range which made it sound thin and occasionally hollow, it became blurred and confused with loud busy passages of music and ultimately it lacked musicality which failed to immerse me in the music, this sound signature could well become fatiguing depending on your flavour of sounds. None of this was a great surprise as the recabling of my other headphones, Beyer T1 and Grado GS1000, had also proven to be an improvement on the stock cables so it's fairly par for the course.
  

  
 (image missing)
So lets move onto the Qaudio v Toxic SW. The Qaudio was a positive step up from the stock cable filling out the mid range, smoothing the top and rebuilding the soundstage with better instrument placement and refinement with greater subtlety and control. The orchestra especially the strings on the classical track by Holst sounded smoother with greater layering and greater realism, it was easier to position instruments in the soundstage. The Bjork track which the stock cable had handled reasonably well now had a deeper more resonant appeal, greater snap, bass, clarification of detail and sound staging, her voice moved away a degree and lost some of it's edge, but there was still a degree of blurring of instruments in loud busy passages. Sting improved in a similar manner, you gained a greater sense of the room this track was recorded in, the small ensemble and the mellowness of his voice,  I have read that this was recorded at the producers home and that you can hear the crackling of the log fire in the background with a revealing system, I'm still waiting for this revelation. Liz Wright has a husky breathy vocal and this became much more apparent with the Q cable, there was layering to the bass and the soundstage moved away from me with greater instrument separation and refinement. The Jeff Beck instrumental had a greater sense of reverb but sometimes at the cost of woolliness in the bass but the edginess of the stock cable had disappeared. The Eva Cassidy track is really difficult to reproduce well, it can be bright and up front but has very detailed instrumental and vocal definition, the Q cable refined this over the stock cable with an improved soundstage and greater control of the vocals but it remained slightly harsh at times and a little confused at others and on occasions suffered from boom. The Q performed very well with the Scott Walker track which is a superb recording, bringing out the mid range, improving the soundstage and detail and presenting his voice with a deeper resonance, this probably more than any other of the tracks typifies the characteristics of this cable which is a positive improvement over the stock cable and a perfectly acceptable replacement.
  

  
So the Toxic SW, I had a degree of trepidation when I shelled out around £350uk for this cable with the carbon fibre Furutech plugs as the Qaudio cable sounded pretty good just lacking a little sparkle which might in fact be the headphones sound signature and something that I'd never be able to resolve to my satisfaction by recabling. If it was just about looks it would have been my winner straight up but this is about sound reproduction first and looks second so it needed to perform, I wasn't to be disappointed, looking back through my notes I have written "wow" under the Liz Wright and Eva Cassidy tracks and "best sound by far" under others. You can remove almost all of the negatives previously mentioned, this cable is not harsh or edgy, it copes well with complex and loud passages controlling them well and although sometimes the change is subtle it improves in every way on the copper Qaudio cable and totally buries the stock cable. The SW is a silver cable with a gold additive, previous experience of silver cables had left me unconvinced as they had been harsh and bright, cable has obviously moved on from then as this cable exhibits little or non of those traits, the sound is smooth at the top but does not lack detail, it offers a full range and has good deep base when it is present plus a great soundstage with refined detail and lots of it, a great combination with the LCD-3 for a non fatiguing listen with musicality. The only disappointment is that this combination still doesn't give me the air and sparkle that I'd like when listening to classical music but I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is more to do with the sound signature of the LCD-3's, my Beyer T1 recabled with Apuresound copper/Burson combo just sound more natural with this type of music, needless to say the LCD-3 Toxic Silver Widow pairing sounded excellent with everything else I played and is now my preferred combination and that's by quite a margin. The greatest compliment I can pay it is to say it has added greater enjoyment and musicality to my listening and I now find myself listening for extended periods forgetting that I am wearing the headphones which is no mean feat considering the weight of the LCD-3's, so it looks as if Frank was right, Silver Widow has done the job.
  
All images show the Toxic Silver Widow cable.
  
*Caveat emptor*: The views expressed above are my personal opinions based on this headphone/cable combination played through my rig and your own experience will differ, we all have differing hearing, different expectations, different rigs and even different sounding LCD-3's, there's no substitute for auditioning kit before committing to a purchase.


----------



## nigeljames

Congratulations on your SW cable.
  
 I have 3 of them on my phones and concur that they are excellent cables.


----------



## Toxic Cables

> Originally Posted by *sam1e *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





  
  
  
 Thanks for taking the time to write the review/comparrison, i really enjoyed the read. 
  
 The Furutech connectors do look awesome with this cable.
  
 Enjoy, and let us know how you get on after some more use.


----------



## walakalulu

I also have just got the SW fixed to the LCD 3's but with standard plugs and agree with your comments over the stock cables. The SW certainly delivers a cleaner sound, maybe not quite as deep in the bass but with better definition. The very high frequencies are improved but still a little shy - I guess this is the Audeze sound. Interested in the Fosgate headamp - does it have enough power to drive the LCD cans correctly? I'm using the NJC audio at present, made in Cornwall.


----------



## hifimanrookie

Great reading..congrats on ur SW..let us know how the sound changes after 100 hours burn in time or more use.


----------



## maguire

Sam, well done on your review, the Silver Widow I have is on an IEM, UM Merlin.
  I also found my Merlin to be a bit wanting for sparle up top, but I certainly didn't want anything taken away from the bass slam it could produce. I too found that the SW was the best at doing this very thing.


----------



## maguire

Now...... go on an put on "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out " & crank that wick would ya's......


----------



## sam1e

walakalulu said:


> I also have just got the SW fixed to the LCD 3's but with standard plugs and agree with your comments over the stock cables. The SW certainly delivers a cleaner sound, maybe not quite as deep in the bass but with better definition. The very high frequencies are improved but still a little shy - I guess this is the Audeze sound. Interested in the Fosgate headamp - does it have enough power to drive the LCD cans correctly? I'm using the NJC audio at present, made in Cornwall.




The Fosgate is a bit of a conundrum, I love the sound and refinement it delivers but the spec would suggest that it needs very efficient phones. I have also read reviews that suggest that it's output is insufficient to drive the LCD-3's but that's not my experience, delivers great sound without having to be cranked up high and in my opinion sounds great with the LCD-3's, I have also used it with Grado GS1000's and Beyerdynamic T1 although I prefer the sound of those through my Burson HA160 D. No problem with the bass for me using the SW with the LCD-3's but that might be down to music preference.


----------



## inter voice

A very interesting review and an article to read with pleasure.  My taste of music is very similar to yours.  I can also agree that actually the stock cable is not that bad at all but of course it is not as good as the SW after all.
  
 I fully endorsed with your findings of SW with LCD and I have very similar impressions.  I am using LCD-X with SW and I found it is a perfect match.  I also agreed with Walakalulu that "The very high frequencies are improved but still a little shy - I guess this is the Audeze sound."
  
 I have auditioned LCD-3 and LCD-X using stock cables before deciding to buy the X as I found the LCD-X has better sound staging, music is more clear and has a bit more HF than LCD-3.  That might only be my impression 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## sam1e

inter voice said:


> A very interesting review and an article to read with pleasure.  My taste of music is very similar to yours.  I can also agree that actually the stock cable is not that bad at all but of course it is not as good as the SW after all.
> 
> I fully endorsed with your findings of SW with LCD and I have very similar impressions.  I am using LCD-X with SW and I found it is a perfect match.  I also agreed with Walakalulu that "The very high frequencies are improved but still a little shy - I guess this is the Audeze sound."
> 
> I have auditioned LCD-3 and LCD-X using stock cables before deciding to buy the X as I found the LCD-X has better sound staging, music is more clear and has a bit more HF than LCD-3.  That might only be my impression :wink_face: .




That's quite interesting as the LCD-X wasn't in production when I purchased the LCD-3's and I haven't been able to audition them, are you saying that you still feel the X to be shy with high frequencies but less so than the 3's? As a matter of interest what amp are you using and what's your source?


----------



## inter voice

sam1e said:


> That's quite interesting as the LCD-X wasn't in production when I purchased the LCD-3's and I haven't been able to audition them, are you saying that you still feel the X to be shy with high frequencies but less so than the 3's? As a matter of interest what amp are you using and what's your source?


 
 Yes, I still found the HF of LCD-X a little bit shy even with SW fitted.  I also got two pairs of HD800s (fitted with BW and Scorpion Toxics) and the HD800 has much better HF which is not fatiguing.  I found overall LCD is more musical and has fully body than HD800 and my only complain is it is still lacking a bit of HF, otherwise it is perfect.
  
 I have posted my LCD-X Frequency Response Graph and you may compare it with your LCD-3 graph:
   http://www.head-fi.org/t/702003/audeze-lcd-x-frequency-response-graph-arrived#post_10201088
  
 My headphone amp. might not be as good as yours but I think they are also very good (like you I have a pair of good ears and I have been playing violin for years).
  
 The source is from two heavily modded Marantz CD63 MKII KI CDPs (component costed over £1000 each excluding labour) and I have two headphone amplifiers, one is Fidelity Audio's HP-200SE ( http://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/hi-fi-products/headphone-amplifiers/fidelity-audio-hpa-200-se/ ) while the other is Yulong A18 over Yulong D18 DAC.
  
 I noticed that you are using a tube Amp. and your LCD-3's HF and clarity could be better if you use a good quality solid state amp.


----------



## sam1e

inter voice said:


> Yes, I still found the HF of LCD-X a little bit shy even with SW fitted.  I also got two pairs of HD800s (fitted with BW and Scorpion Toxics) and the HD800 has much better HF which is not fatiguing.  I found overall LCD is more musical and has fully body than HD800 and my only complain is it is still lacking a bit of HF, otherwise it is perfect.
> 
> I have posted my LCD-X Frequency Response Graph and you may compare it with your LCD-3 graph:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/702003/audeze-lcd-x-frequency-response-graph-arrived#post_10201088
> ...




No great surprise that the HD800 outperforms the LCD-3 with higher frequencies, I think that has been fairly well documented as has the need for many to tone it down a touch usually with a replacement copper cable. I agree however that overall the LCD-3 is full bodied and very satisfying to listen to especially if you are in the zone it just doesn't quite do it for me with classical, just seems to lack air but I now believe that to be it's sound signature. But then I have been to many concerts with friends where we had different opinions on what we had heard when discussing it over a pint.

 I have no idea whether or not my amp/source/DAC is any better than the one you are using, it's so subjective, there are so many variables. In theory price point should be an indicator but as you go up the scale you reach the point of diminishing returns and maybe have a desire for it to sound better regardless, there's no greater fool than an audiophile and I should know  

I was really wondering if you were listening to CD via a DAC or streaming by USB straight to an amp from a computer.


----------



## inter voice

sam1e said:


> I was really wondering if you were listening to CD via a DAC or streaming by USB straight to an amp from a computer.


 
 I still use CDs directly for my music and I don't use DAC at all for the headphones and I prefer a short signal path as far as possible.  I use my two CD63s and couple them directly to the two headphone amplifiers for my HD800 and LCD-X.  The on the board DAC of the heavily modded CD63 has excellent performance which is equivalent to the Yulong D18 DAC (confirmed after A/B testing and comparison).  The DAC mainly outputs to my main amplifier (Leema Tucana IIs) using coaxial cable from the CD63 for my Spendor speakers. 
  
 IMHO and impression, I would say HD800 is more suitable for classical music (because it has more air, reacts faster and more dynamic, better sound staging, much better instrument separations and the background is much clearer than LCD-X) while LCD-X performs better on Jazz in particular on vocals.  Therefore I will keep both CANs for different kinds of music.
  
 People say HD800's bass is too lean and the HF is fatiguing but I do not have that impression.  When I compared the bass between HD800 and LCD-X actually HD800's bass is not too far off while the HF is not fatiguing at all after fitting Scorpion and Black Widow from Frank.  But this also very much depends on the right headphone amplifier you are using.  It is well know that HD800 is difficult to match with a lot of headphone amplifiers.  Headphone amplifier needs to have sufficient power to provide the current in order to make the HD800 performs its best, in particular on its bass department. To my understanding when Yulong designed its A18 it used HD800 as its reference headphones and that is why it matches excellently with HD800.
  
 If you ask me my preference between HD800 and LCD-X I can tell you that overall I like HD800 a little bit more.
  
 Why not borrow a pair of HD800 and have an audition with your tube amp and like me you may like HD800 for classical music listening at the end of the day
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## inter voice

Okay, to ensure what I have mentioned in my previous thread is correct, just now I listened to the last movement of Beethoven Symphony No. 9 by Bernard Haitink of the London Symphony Orchestra using my HD800 and LCD-X for a comparison.
  
 With HD800 over my head I can hear clearly all the distinctive voices of the Chorus, the soprano, the mezzo-soprano, the tenor and the bass (left and right as well as front and rear positions can be identified clearly).  All the musical instruments are correctly positioned and with excellent sound staging and atmosphere.  I can hear all the minute details of the musical instruments, especially in the HF spectrum.  I just like listening to a life performance sitting in the middle of the concert hall.   
  
 However with the LCD-X on the entire orchestra seemed to pack closely together and the orchestra is very closed to me.  Though closer it does not mean I can hear everything clearer and unfortunately I could not distinctively separate different voices in the chorus as in the HD800.  The HF are rolled off and the details of the instruments, in particular, in the HF department are not prominent.  It makes the entire music muddy and I have no three dimensional feeling and the music is plain to my ears.
  
 I am not saying LCD-X is bad but certainly it is not good for very complex music such as Symphony No.9.  LCD-X IMHO is perfect for relatively slower and less complex music such as jazz vocals and blues.  That is why I only use my HD800 for classical music and the LCD-X for jazz vocals and other slow music.
  
Some of you might not agree with me but that is what I have experienced and heard using my gears. 
  
Remark:  Sorry that my post might be off the topic.


----------



## inter voice

Sam1e@  I noticed the recommended operating impedance range of your Fosgate Signature headphone amp is from 50-500 ohm but your LCD-3's impedance is only 45 ohm .  I have the feeling that your LCD-3 may not work at its best with Fosgate. Incorrect impedance will affect the overall frequency response and cause some distortion. However HD800 has an impedance of 300 ohm which should work better.  May be I am wrong.   
  
 LCD-X has an impedance of 22 ohm which is even lower than LCD-3 but my HPA-200SE can cope with headphone impedance from 12-600 ohms while Yulong A18 can work with 16-600 ohms.


----------



## sam1e

inter voice said:


> Sam1e@  I noticed the recommended operating impedance range of your Fosgate Signature headphone amp is from 50-500 ohm but your LCD-3's impedance is only 45 ohm .  I have the feeling that your LCD-3 may not work at its best with Fosgate. Incorrect impedance will affect the overall frequency response and cause some distortion. However HD800 has an impedance of 300 ohm which should work better.  May be I am wrong.
> 
> LCD-X has an impedance of 22 ohm which is even lower than LCD-3 but my HPA-200SE can cope with headphone impedance from 12-600 ohms while Yulong A18 can work with 16-600 ohms.




No problem according to Jim Fosgate when I checked to see if the Fosgate would cope with my 600ohm Beyer T1's, it's quite possible that the LCD-3's will sound better with a different amp, but there's no apparent problems that I can hear with the Fosgate/3 combination and no shortage of volume.


----------



## setamp

Thank you for taking the time to compare cables.  There are very few of such comparisons of hp cables to be found.  Choosing a cable is difficult as when asked which cable works best with the LCD3 (for example) you get a list of all of the cables that people own without any real head-to-head listening experience.


----------



## dermott

sam1e said:


> Sting improved in a similar manner, you gained a greater sense of the room this track was recorded in, the small ensemble and the mellowness of his voice,  I have read that this was recorded at the producers home and that *you can hear the crackling of the log fire in the background with a revealing system, I'm still waiting for this revelation. *


 
  
 Check out "My One and Only Love" from that album. The crackling fire is definitely present on that track.


----------



## walakalulu

Having just changed my headamp I now prefer the stock cable - funny old world.


----------



## sam1e

walakalulu said:


> Having just changed my headamp I now prefer the stock cable - funny old world.





What was your amp and what is the new one? Which cable were you using?

Cheers


----------



## gjc11028

sam1e said:


> Well folks I have had my Audeze LCD-3 for some time now and have never been truly happy with the sound, too dark I thought at first so they went back to Audeze for a check up and came back with new drivers and a new sound graph, a vast improvement giving more air to the sound and greater definition at the top which had sounded veiled before, a great sound all round but still not quite the sparkle that I wanted especially for classical music.[





First, thanks for the review. Wish there were more direct comparisons. But also interested in this first part. Did audeze have any explanation for why the original headphones were so bad? Thanks


----------



## walakalulu

sam1e said:


> What was your amp and what is the new one? Which cable were you using?
> 
> Cheers


 

 I was using a NJC audio Monitor ll and now have the Trilogy 933. Was using the Toxic Cable Silver Widow. Guess I'll put it in the classifieds.


----------



## walakalulu

There is now a review of the LCD 3's in Hi Fi News. Very fine but not one for detail freaks due to the reticent high frequencies was the conclusion.


----------



## sam1e

gjc11028 said:


> First, thanks for the review. Wish there were more direct comparisons. But also interested in this first part. Did audeze have any explanation for why the original headphones were so bad? Thanks




It's not that they were so bad, I described it as lacking sparkle, in the early days of the LCD-3's, and the 2's there was a lot written about them being veiled or overly dark, search for veiled LCD's and see what turns up. I believed mine to have similar traits and sent them back to Audeze for a check up, they changed the drivers and when they came back the mids and highs were further forward and better defined than they had been previously, in my view quite an improvement. It's been suggested that they may have had a bad batch of drivers although this has never been confirmed by Audeze who have been nothing short of exemplary with their after sales service which is great to see from a manufacturer. For me the sound signature of these headphones is great with female vocals, guitar, jazz but not in my view for classical, they still lack sparkle for me in that area, that's not to say that a different amp wouldn't improve on that.


----------



## sam1e

walakalulu said:


> I was using a NJC audio Monitor ll and now have the Trilogy 933. Was using the Toxic Cable Silver Widow. Guess I'll put it in the classifieds.




Interesting, my original review was produced comparing the SW with the early cotton covered version of the Qaudio cable, I now have the current production cable, slightly heavier on copper with the current production silk wrap. I'll be updating the review to include this cable in the near future.


----------



## hifimanrookie

sam1e said:


> Interesting, my original review was produced comparing the SW with the early cotton covered version of the Qaudio cable, I now have the current production cable, slightly heavier on copper with the current production silk wrap. I'll be updating the review to include this cable in the near future.



Why did u buy a new cable again, while u mentioned to have chosen the SW over the q audio cable just recently? 

That makes me really curious of why u did that, as all three are rather expensive cables.


----------



## sam1e

hifimanrookie said:


> Why did u buy a new cable again, while u mentioned to have chosen the SW over the q audio cable just recently?
> 
> That makes me really curious of why u did that, as all three are rather expensive cables.




Quite simple really, the Qaudio cable used for the review was over 12 months old and had the previous generation cotton sleeve and is no longer supplied by Qaudio in that spec, hasn't been for 12 months, the current production cable is slightly heavier in terms of copper with a greater number of strands, a shift from 22awg to 21awg and now comes wrapped in a silk sleeve. Steve at Qaudio was happy that I review his product regardless of the outcome of the review but felt that it would have been of greater value had I compared like with like, that is current spec with current spec, I thought that he had a fair point and in the interest of a balanced review suggested that he replace my existing cable with the current spec allowing me to update the review, this he generously agreed to do even though there is a good chance that the outcome of the review will be the same purely because of the darkness of the LCD-3's, I found his attitude to be quite refreshing to be honest. I'll be putting together the update in the next few weeks and posting shortly after, I have no idea whether or not there will be any difference in the outcome of the review but I'm quite interested to hear if the two Qaudios sound any different.


----------



## hifimanrookie

sam1e said:


> Quite simple really, the Qaudio cable used for the review was over 12 months old and had the previous generation cotton sleeve and is no longer supplied by Qaudio in that spec, hasn't been for 12 months, the current production cable is slightly heavier in terms of copper with a greater number of strands, a shift from 22awg to 21awg and now comes wrapped in a silk sleeve. Steve at Qaudio was happy that I review his product regardless of the outcome of the review but felt that it would have been of greater value had I compared like with like, that is current spec with current spec, I thought that he had a fair point and in the interest of a balanced review suggested that he replace my existing cable with the current spec allowing me to update the review, this he generously agreed to do even though there is a good chance that the outcome of the review will be the same purely because of the darkness of the LCD-3's, I found his attitude to be quite refreshing to be honest. I'll be putting together the update in the next few weeks and posting shortly after, I have no idea whether or not there will be any difference in the outcome of the review but I'm quite interested to hear if the two Qaudios sound any different.


oh okay..thanks for explaining...looking forward to ur update


----------



## sam1e

Today we have an update on my earlier review substituting the older Qaudio cable which is no longer in production with the current and revised version. I have decided to add this after Steve at Q made the point that it probably would be of greater value to fellow head-fi readers to review the current version of the Qaudio cable rather than one that they no longer produce, he makes a good point and it's difficult to disagree and as he was generous enough to supply a replacement for my old cable it would be churlish not to revisit the review.
  
Having discounted the stock cable in my original review as a serious contender I'm only going to revisit the current copper Qaudio and silver Toxic cable for this update but before doing that I'm interested to know whether or not I can hear any difference between the old and the new Qaudio cable. The new cable, as with it's predecessor, is copper litz but sees an increase in the strand count from 175 to 220 with an increase in the gauge from 22awg to 21awg, this makes the cable slightly heavier and less flexible than it's predecessor which was feather like but not a great deal, the sheathing is now French Silk rather than cotton and the connectors at the headphones are by Rean which is a Neutrik company, the amplifier termination at your choice depending on requirements, in my case a 6.3 jack.
  

  

  

  
Well as you can see from the pictures this cable compliments the LCD-3's rather nicely, brown French Silk with a rather attractive 6.3mm gold plated jack complete with a resin jacket, terrazzo style, which gives it an air of luxury, it's certainly a step up from the all black cotton predecessor I was using. As to the sound well I was pleasantly surprised to find that considering what appear on the surface to be minor differences to the specification between the two cables that there are, to my ears, noticeable sonic differences, the revised cable improves on it's predecessor in all areas, bass is deeper with tighter control and there is greater air and detail, the differences may well be subtle but they are definitely there.
So how does it compare with the Toxic Silver Widow, my preferred choice for the LCD-3 after my original review. First I have to reiterate my original comments that the LCD-3's have a dark sound signature and for me need more sparkle and definition at the upper middle and top. The Toxic cable went some way to improving that but ultimately I didn't feel that the LCD-3 gave me the clarity that I wanted with classical music, I have gone some way to resolving that by buying a pair of HD800's, although they come with a different set of sonic problems which are well documented elsewhere on head-fi but not relevant to this review. The LCD-3's with the Toxic SW are excellent for most every other genre of music and remain the least fatiguing of the set ups that I currently listen to.
  
The same set up and music choice was used to reevaluate the two cables and rather than go over old ground and detail each track I'm going to summarise my thoughts. You can take it as read that for each track I listened to I found the new Qaudio cable an improvement over it's predecessor with a wider sound stage with greater definition, quicker transients and greater air around the notes as well as tighter and deeper bass. Yes these improvements were often subtle but overall they gave a cleaner, deeper sound giving the music a greater intimacy and presence. There were few negatives in my notes, on the Lizz Wright track I noted that the top end is slightly grainy and on the Jeff Beck track that although there was greater control it just didn't sound quite right but I struggled to define why. Everything else was positive, I noted that the top was sweet on the Eva Cassidy track and that the bass was tighter with greater control on the Scott Walker track so thumbs up to Steve at Qaudio for the improvements made over the previous cable. Onto the Toxic Silver Widow, well my opinion hasn't really changed, this is still my preferred cable for the LCD-3, the Q ran it closer this time but the SW still improves the sound in all departments, albeit subtly. I guess this is down to the increase in detail at the top and upper mid range that you achieve with silver over copper that suits the LCD-3 so well, what Frank has achieved with this cable over previous incarnations of silver cable that I have heard is to take the edge of hardness off the very top end and to maintain bass at the bottom often a bit lean with silver, whether or not that's down to the integration of small amounts of gold with the silver in this cable I can't say, I'll leave that for the technically minded to comment on, it may just be that connectors and cable have improved in recent years, for me I'll trust what my ears tell me.
  
I will conclude by saying that all of the cables that I have listened to here sound great as stand alone items and would make worthwhile improvements over the stock cable, as with most high end hi-fi it's not until you are able to do a side by side comparison that you hear what you have been missing or at least think you have!  I guess that experimentation and the constant quest for improvement is a part of the audiophile bug so best enjoy the journey, me I'd dearly like to hear the Qaudio cable attached to the HD800's I now have as they suffer the exact opposite issues than the Audeze phones and then I reckon copper may prevail.

As previously,
  
Caveat emptor: The views expressed above are my personal opinions based on this headphone/cable combination played through my rig and your own experience will differ, we all have differing hearing, different rigs and even different sounding LCD-3's, there's no substitute for auditioning kit before committing to a purchase.


----------



## Lenni

nevermind...


----------



## nigeljames

Did Steve send you this new cable to see if it sounded any different to the old cable, or for other non SQ reasons?
  
 Does Steve (Q Audio) know you can hear a difference between his cables or other manufacturers cables?
  
 Steve does not believe cables sound different.
  
 If he does has he called you delusional yet because he tends to do that to anyone who mentions that cables make a difference.
  
  
 P.S I also know that cables make a difference and have 3 Silver Widow cables myself, great cable.


----------



## sam1e

Gosh fellas, where did that come from. These are my opinions not Steve's and they carry no bias, I evaluate with my ears as most of us do, Steve looks for science to back up his views and has his own opinions which we may or may not agree with but they are his views and not mine and if he had an agenda, and I'm not aware that he had, it could only be a desire to have his current cable reviewed as opposed to one he no longer produces which seems reasonable to me and I certainly don't have an agenda. Please take the review for what it is, my interest in the difference that cables can make and my opinion of these two headphone cables, one copper, one silver, tethered to a pair of LCD-3's, that's it. 

Ultimately my conclusion was the same and I hope that I presented it in an honest and unbiased way, Qaudio and Toxic aren't the only two cable manufacturers out there, there may be a cable made by another manufacturer that brings even more out of the LCD-3's but I don't have one to compare and cable reviews are thin on the ground.


----------



## nigeljames

Sorry I never intended anything negative regarding your review I was wondering the *reason* Steve sent you the new cable for review when there should not be any SQ difference, according to Steve.
  
 On another note, knowing that cables do make a difference (something I expect you also believe) , I could never buy a cable from someone who believes all cables are the same SQ wise at least.
  
 For what it's worth, I use the Silver Widow on my HE6's. LCD2.2's and HD800's to great effect.


----------



## sam1e

No slight taken, yours wasn't the only response in a similar vein, I just felt that it needed addressing. I believe that Hi-fi is all about preference and opinion and is all the better for it. I don't know Steve personally but I am aware of his views, he approaches the subject from the scientific angle, that's most probably his background, he says it as he sees it and lets face it it's most difficult to argue against the science as it tends to support Steve's opinion but I don't evaluate my kit with test equipment I use my ears as most of us do and no matter how flaky that might be on scientific grounds it's ultimately the purpose the kit is produced for. Of cause it's possible that I suffer from the placebo effect, a desire for it to sound better because that's why I bought it, I hope not. I listen and listen again over a reasonable period of time under quite strict criteria in an effort to be honest with my opinions, but they are just that, my opinions using my ears which is not very scientific, your hearing and consequent opinion will probably differ that's why we need to audition if possible but that's not so easy with headphone cables, certainly not in the UK, so all reviews are helpful as a guide as long as you see it as someone else's opinion. 

As a point of interest I have an Apuresound cable on T1's that sound great but I bought them as the second owner so don't have anything to compare the sound to including the stock as they are hard wired, it may be the perfect match, there may be something better but unlike the LCD-3's they don't frustrate me to a point of wanting more from them and that's what drove this review. I guess ultimately you have to have sufficient faith in your own opinions not to be swayed by others, but I will listen and learn when appropriate and regardless of others views make my own mind up whether that be right or wrong, who's to say anyway.


----------



## nigeljames

sam1e said:


> No slight taken, yours wasn't the only response in a similar vein, I just felt that it needed addressing. I believe that Hi-fi is all about preference and opinion and is all the better for it. I don't know Steve personally but I am aware of his views, he approaches the subject from the scientific angle, that's most probably his background, he says it as he sees it and lets face it it's most difficult to argue against the science as it tends to support Steve's opinion but I don't evaluate my kit with test equipment I use my ears as most of us do and no matter how flaky that might be on scientific grounds it's ultimately the purpose the kit is produced for. Of cause it's possible that I suffer from the placebo effect, a desire for it to sound better because that's why I bought it, I hope not. I listen and listen again over a reasonable period of time under quite strict criteria in an effort to be honest with my opinions, but they are just that, my opinions using my ears which is not very scientific, your hearing and consequent opinion will probably differ that's why we need to audition if possible but that's not so easy with headphone cables, certainly not in the UK, so all reviews are helpful as a guide as long as you see it as someone else's opinion.
> 
> As a point of interest I have an Apuresound cable on T1's that sound great but I bought them as the second owner so don't have anything to compare the sound to including the stock as they are hard wired, it may be the perfect match, there may be something better but unlike the LCD-3's they don't frustrate me to a point of wanting more from them and that's what drove this review. I guess ultimately you have to have sufficient faith in your own opinions not to be swayed by others, but I will listen and learn when appropriate and regardless of others views make my own mind up whether that be right or wrong, who's to say anyway.


 
  
 Yes I agree with you entirely and I have absolutely no issue with Steve's personal opinion.
  
 My only problem is when people, in this case the cable naysayers (including Steve), call other people delusional and even idiots for daring to disagree with their dogmatic views. It's not right and it's not fair to the other person.
  
 That's why I was curious as to why he would send you a cable to review when there is no 'SQ difference'
 The other factors as to why someone would buy a new cable, (ergonomics, flexibility, micro-phonics) are things he can compare himself without needing a second opinion.
  
 Like you I also listen with my ears and if I can hear a difference then there's a difference. It's just disappointing that some people can not understand that


----------



## sam1e

We all have different opinions and heavens knows a forum discussion isn't the easiest place to read intonation, I don't know what has been said elsewhere but it's not relevant to this review and to clarify Steve did not send me a cable to review, he replaced a cable, it was my decision to review it as I was interested to know if there were any differences, needless to say it has to be more relevant to readers to review a cable that is actually available. 

Can we move on now please this thread isn't about Steve or his techical reasoning and he hasn't subscribed to the thread, I think it would be more apposite to return to the thread which is about two different cables and a set of headphones.


----------



## nigeljames

Yes fair enough, I was just curious that's all.


----------



## sam1e

No problem.


----------



## Lenni

it would have been really great if you had a WyWire Red cable to compare to the Silver Widow. if I get one, I will loan it to you to do a comparison with the SW.


----------



## Steve Eddy

.


----------



## nigeljames

Please let this thread get back on topic and if you need to continue this please take it to PM.
  
 Edited as requested.


----------



## Steve Eddy

.


----------



## sam1e

Come on fellas I started this thread as a point of information for those interested in the difference that these very different cables can make to the LCD-3 with no other agenda, these comments are irrelevant to the thread and relate to some other discussion held elsewhere at some time in the past, by all means comment on the review but take the other matter off this thread.


----------



## sam1e

lenni said:


> it would have been really great if you had a WyWire Red cable to compare to the Silver Widow. if I get one, I will loan it to you to do a comparison with the SW.




The guys in the States don't know how lucky they are to have such a strong headphone community, they have access to such a broad range of kit, here in the UK it is so difficult to find somewhere to audition different manufacturers headphones let alone quality amps and cables which is why the reviews are so helpful. I only know of an outlet near Worthing and one in Bedfordshire that have a good range of phones and amps to demo. We rely on each other for cable feedback and I admit I know nothing about WyWire cables, what do you know yourself?


----------



## Lenni

sam1e said:


> The guys in the States don't know how lucky they are to have such a strong headphone community, they have access to such a broad range of kit, here in the UK it is so difficult to find somewhere to audition different manufacturers headphones let alone quality amps and cables which is why the reviews are so helpful. I only know of an outlet near Worthing and one in Bedfordshire that have a good range of phones and amps to demo. We rely on each other for cable feedback and I admit I know nothing about WyWire cables, what do you know yourself?


 
  
 WyWire is primarily a hi-end speaker cable's manufacturer - the HP cable is a new addition. I have zero experience with their cables, since I've been happy with the ones I use and have not felt the need for new cables in a few years, but they've received many positive reviews. I mostly listen to speakers these days, but I've been looking to get a pair of HP lately for the train commute. I think I'm gonna go with the Viso HP50; if I'm happy at the way they sound, I'll probably replace the stock cable. For me it's either the WyWire or a couple of metres of Cristal Piccolo interconnects terminated for HP use. we'll see...


----------



## setamp

I prefer the WyWires Red to the Toxic SW with my LCD3 in my setup.


----------



## sam1e

setamp said:


> I prefer the WyWires Red to the Toxic SW with my LCD3 in my setup.




What would you say the differences are Setamp and what's your source? I guess I'd also have to ask which version of the LCD-3 you have, early veiled, replaced drivers, recent with favors, etc,etc?


----------



## setamp

sam1e

 My thoughts on the WyWires are here:

 http://www.head-fi.org/t/717013/wywires-red-headphone-cable/15#post_10630173

 I can't tell you where my lcd's fall in the timeline but they are not veiled and therefore do not have replaced drivers.

 My source is Bryston BDP-1/ Lampization L4G4/ Eddie Current Balancing Act (300b).

 The biggest difference to me is instrument separation and image solidity within a larger and deeper soundstage.  Microdynamics are also improved.


----------



## DarknightDK

Nice review and great effort on the comparison between Q and Toxic Cables. I have not heard Q cables but I do agree that silver cables generally pair better with the LCD 3 given its character. I, too, have the SW for my LCD 3 and have found it to be a wonderful pairing. It brings out the air, sparkle and added detail in the higher frequencies while still maintaining deep, tight bass which is not overpowering. The SW are very balanced cables which complements the LCD 3 extremely well. I have not had the urge to upgrade since settling on the SW (well, maybe for a 16 wire SW if Frank decides to make one). So good were the SWs that I purchased another pair for my HD800 (also a great match). As usual, jmho.


----------



## LivingVoice

I use Toxic Cables Venom , Franks top creation with the Audeze 3,



Toxic Cable Venom Silver


----------



## inter voice

livingvoice said:


> Toxic Cable Venom Silver


 
 BTW how much does it cost?  Should not be cheap


----------



## LivingVoice

inter voice said:


> BTW how much does it cost?  Should not be cheap



No not so cheap however the Venom is Franks flagship offering for Audeze owners. Conversion from British Pounds to U.S. dollars equals just under $1,200.00 with a long wait time.

Frank briefly explains his R & D with the Venom cable on his web site, comparing the competition Frank is confident his flagship cable is far better which is a mighty bold statement.
I need a custom length of cable for my listening position and new Fazor Audeze 3s ,


----------



## hifimanrookie

inter voice said:


> BTW how much does it cost?  Should not be cheap



Check this custom cable..its also a venom..but the copper version of it..also 8wire and also retangular solid wire..only difference is huge price difference and copper vs. silver...and much more affordable!...the cable on pic is a one off specially built for me with 8wire for my Code-X..just like the silver widow, as normal copper venom has 4wires, thats why its called:VENOM RC-4





This cable is on his way to me as we speak...but i understand the 'regular' copper venom RC4 (4wire version)!will also pair very well with a lcd3.

Maybe a tip as alternative to a silver venom?


----------

