Marantz/B&W scarred me for life!

When we tried the FFRC there was no Isolda here.

When we tried it, it wasn't competitive with anything, and we had Cable Talk 3, Cable Talk 4.1, Gale XL315, Ortophon SPK 200, QED SA, QED Original, Chord Co. Oddyssey, Jamo High Definition, Naim NAC A4, Linn K20 and Supra 4 all lying about at the time, plus some others I can't remember. The FFRC wasn't better than any of them, not anywhere!!!

But the real killer for it was, whilst you can argue that any one of the above cables is better than any other, unlike FFRC they don't exhibit any particular or overriding sonic flaw, where the FFRC had hardness and grainyness stamped all the way through it. Bass was soft too, not in level but in definition, and it didn't time either. That balance may appeal to some people / systems, but it's not safe enough for a commercial balance in budget kit, which is one reason I expect no-one makes a cable similar in construction. Safe isn't often very inspiring, but it usually doesn't get thrown away (as did the FFRC).

I don't understand the apparent pre-disposition people have against proper cabling. They seem quite happy to blow ever increasing sums on boxes, many of which only ever work to a fraction of their potential due to the ancillaries they are used with. I'm not saying this just because we market a few interconnect cables either. Some huge gains can be made in the correct selection of speaker cable for instance (there are some truly good ones out there already) but it seems the area is rarely addressed.

Cheers

 

Then I would say that something was wrong with the FFRC you tested or you were using components that weren't suited to it.

FFRC was so much better than cable talk 3 in my system it wasn't funny (it was one of the biggest changes I've ever heard).

Quite a few of the people I've sold FFRC to use B&W DM600 series speakers, so it may be that FFRC is particularly suited to these speakers, who knows. But I know a few people who would certainly disagree over whether FFRC is competitive with a whole load of those cables you mention.

 

Far more elequently put that I could, but surprising truthfull. WM

 

Well, I've compared FFRC to Gale XL315, QED Silver Anniversary, and more recently, Chord Odyssey. Sounds like I had a similar experience to Timpy, I found it inferior to all of them. It had a soft treble, and the sound seemed "messed up" in places, the bass was weak and lacked any kind of drive (noticable with dance music more than anything else I feel), and the midrange was recessed to the point of being non-existant, especially compared to QED SA.

Maybe it was badly made or crap cable or whatever, but I am more than happy with my QED Silver Anniversary to want to try it again.

We (me and my mate) repeated the experiment using cheapo Shark cable from Maplin, v XL315 v QED SA v FFRC. This time on a Pioneer A400 and Wharfedale Diamond speakers. The result was the same, he even preferred the cheapo Shark cable to the FFRC, as did I.

When I first built the FFRC, I wanted to like it, after all everyone was raving about it, and it did stay in my system for a while, but the whole time it was in I was not satisfied with my system, and contemplated upgrading boxes, when all along it was never the problem. Then I got the QED SA, and it blew the FFRC into kingdom come to be honest.

I even prefer the QED SA to the much more expensive Chord Odyssey in my system. So it led me to the conclusion that expensive isnt always better (well maybe it is in Isolda's case), but that just about anything was better than FFRC.

So whether or not my FFRC was just crap or whatever, my opinion of it has been so tarnished that it will never beckon my system again.

 

Ahh, well, if so many luminaries tell me I'm wrong I guess I must be.

 

There is certainly more of a disparity in folks opinions of FFRC than there are with other cables. I would hazard a guess, as has been suggested, that some of the problems experienced with this cable are partially due to poor samples. I have witnessed other FFRC 'attempts', and none have at least visually compared to the constuction and quality of the current set which i employ .
However, sonically, i have only ever tried one set of FFRC in my system, and so this is purely conjecture as to whether or not shoddy construction techniques could account for the disparaging comments flying about regarding the sonic charecteristics. I won't repeat again my observations regarding its performance in relation to similarly priced commercially available options, but it supercedes those that i have tried.

Isolda DCT may be the ONLY cable:notworthy to have, but is obviously a bit of a joke when using <£500 speakers (correct me if my maths is incorrect). But in the <£10 arena i would contend that there is definitely an argument for FFRC. I will have some properly made stuff on demo for visiting afficianados in the near future (they may not show now they know ), so i will ensure that my kevlar jacket is well harnessed in light of some of the comments bandying about . If all else fails it makes a good 'toe rope' i once heard:MILD:

 

Just for completeness the components we used were:

Audiolab 8000LX, Arcam Delta 90, and Pioneer A400 amps. We had an Arcam Alpha 10 too but I don't remember using it for the tests and the (not very comprehensive) notes don't mention it.

Speakers were Mission 774 (which were possibly not well run in at that time) and so Mission 771, Tannoy MX1 and Linn Keilidh speakers were used as well.

Sources were Arcam Alpha 8 cdp / Rotel CDP-965BX as transports driving a TAG DAC 20 (with IXOS 1051 and 105 digi interconnect and MF Nu-Vista Interconnects would have been in use at that time IIRC although the notes don't list them). Or a NAD C540 cdp with Sonic Link Violet interconnects, which most of the notes refer to. TAG didn't seem to get much play so it must have been done about the time it was in and out on loan to the mate with a TAG CDP20.

Actually looking at the few notes there are, brightness doesn't often make an appearance, but "roughness" and "obvious top" appears virtually in every entry along with "poor bass" and strident mid, apart from listener 3 that is (you know who you are...... please make a note the term "It's just crap" is not a helpful contribution when your come to review the notes!!!!!!!!!). Seems that the Cable Talk's didn't do very well either, as it seems to have suffered from something called "marshmellow bass" as well as the FFRC, whatever that may be and the 4.1 was noted as too smooth, but that exists in an 8m run, which may have something to do with it. FFRC lengths were 3m, and all the others bar 4.1 (were 3-5m). Objective and unfamiliar listeners are all very well until they have to try and describe something..... !!!!

Cheers

 

Just because you've found two/three people who don't agree with you doesn't make you wrong. It just means that you've found two people who's experience doesn't correspond with yours. Nothing wrong with that. I for one wouldn't care if I was the only one in the known universe who thought that FFRC was "****", it's my opinion, based on my experience and I stand by it.

Otherwise I'd just find myself hiding in the corner with lowrider....

Cheers

 

FWIW I didn't find any flaws with my (self constructed) FFRC cable. It was quite a bit better than the Audioquest Type4 I'd been using upto that point. It wasn't outstanding but it didn't have any obvious flaws.

It doesn't compare to the Isolda I have now of course but then we're talking totally different price ranges. I'm using one of my 3m FFRC runs as a high-level sub cable now - works a lot better than the crap "mains wire" cable that came with my MJA Pro50 :MILD:

Michael.

 

Well, if Isaac brings his Cat 5 along next week, I'll bring some off the roll £4@meter commerialy available cable along to compare in Dino rig, then you can determine for yourselves if it's worth the hassle Just for the record, there is approx 200m or so knocking about for one thing and another, but one thing is for sure, no attempt is going to be used for anything other than it's intended for telecommunications, one intresting point, Dyn audio new studio digital monitors, use a Cat 5 cable as a Clock syn/word bit line in to the speakers.

 

Dino already uses it.

 

on ffrc

some of you guy,s are going to have to enlighten me .
i,ve neither made nor heard ffrc , so i,m not in a position to comment , but i do have a question...

hopefully someone on here will have an answer .

like i said , i,ve never made it , never heard it , but when ever i think of ffrc i always think of it as the cheap alternative to kimber 4tc/8tc .
now the kimber cable gets good reviews , so whats the difference ?
i can,t see it being geometry as surely a woven cable is a woven cable .
if it,s because kimber uses multistrand instead of solid core (i,m theorising , it,s not a given fact), then i seem to remember an awful lot of guy,s saying don,t use multistrand , you must use solid core .
anyone got any ideas?


ps , this is only conjecture , not fact , but don,t tnt audio have some claim to the design as it is (or name ?) and this is why it,s not for commercial use/sale .

 

That is good, as this will show, when we 'change various other' components, down stream first, you will hear the 'Venturi effect' it has, then we can repeat the same thing with speaker cable in it's place, then you will understand. WM

 

I found that FFRC gave my speakers greater detail and better bass timing, I can't really say I noticed a difference in the treble. I used to have bi-wired Gale XL315-2 before and I do prefer my FFRC. Maybe its just because its not bi-wired now it sounds better I don't know, also I have two runs of FFRC cable to terminal rather than the normal one and a half, so maybe this helps things. Its terminated with Shark plugs. And my XL315 didn't have any termination plugs so maybe it oxidised and that affected the sound quality.

My specs are Sony CDP530, Marantz PM6010OSE, Eltax Monitor III's (better than people say, they certainly but my JPW 310i's to shame) and a load of other sources including a Project Debut II.

I am happy with the sound anyway and I cannot be bothered to change my speaker cable again, anyway my mum has got my old XL315-2 cables now.