Zitron Anaconda Digital - First impression

BlueFox

Review: Shunyata Zitron Anaconda AES Digital Cable

I came home Monday night, and after almost three weeks, my new Shunyata digital cable, along with a few other things, finally arrived. I immediately replaced my current Zitron Python AES cable with the Anaconda AES, and it has been burning in all week, both idle and in use.

At first, it didn't seem much better than the Python, but by Thursday night I was impressed. Now it is Friday night, and I am glad I bought the Anaconda since it solved a problem that I never considered a digital IC as the source. Plus it sounds great.

The music appears to be more open, clearly defined in space, smoother, and less harsh on my ears at extreme levels. Either the DAC did an amazing burn-in at the same time, or the Anaconda digital is amazing.

BlueFox

BlueFox wrote: »

..... and I am glad I bought the Anaconda since it solved a problem that I never considered a digital IC as the source.

Let me expand on this. In December I added a second 20 amp line for my amps. Putting the amps on their own circuit removed a layer of haze that resulted in an increase of clarity. This was like being able to listen 'deeper' into the music, or hearing background detail not really heard before.

This exposed a high frequency noise on some, mostly rock, CD files. This noise was more apparent at high volumes, and it was at the right frequency to irritate the tinnitus in my left ear. I attributed it to some type of digital artifact, and purchased an Auralic Vega DAC to fight it. While the Vega did clear it up, it could still be heard on some files, but it was suppressed and not irritating as before.

Anyway, with the Anaconda digital cable, the noise appears to be gone. My guess is it is working quite well with the Vega in somehow cleaning up the signal. I doubt that the Python was the source of this noise. Otherwise I would expect it to be on all CDs. While the Python is a great digital cable, the Anaconda is in other league. Shunyata has outdone themselves with this cable, IMO.

I can't believe there are still people around who insist it is impossible for digital cables to sound different.

pearsall001

BlueFox wrote: »

Let me expand on this. In December I added a second 20 amp line for my amps. Putting the amps on their own circuit removed a layer of haze that resulted in an increase of clarity. This was like being able to listen 'deeper' into the music, or hearing background detail not really heard before.

This exposed a high frequency noise on some, mostly rock, CD files. This noise was more apparent at high volumes, and it was at the right frequency to irritate the tinnitus in my left ear. I attributed it to some type of digital artifact, and purchased an Auralic Vega DAC to fight it. While the Vega did clear it up, it could still be heard on some files, but it was suppressed and not irritating as before.

Anyway, with the Anaconda digital cable, the noise appears to be gone. My guess is it is working quite well with the Vega in somehow cleaning up the signal. I doubt that the Python was the source of this noise. Otherwise I would expect it to be on all CDs. While the Python is a great digital cable, the Anaconda is in other league. Shunyata has outdone themselves with this cable, IMO.

I can't believe there are still people around who insist it is impossible for digital cables to sound different.

Man you are dead on. I've experienced a "Huge" difference with different digital cables. I had an audio buddy over a few weeks ago & we had 4 different cables that we wanted to give a listen to to see what if any differences we heard. The 4 cables were: my current Grover Huffman cable, a Black Cat Veloce cable, a WyWires cable, and a custom cable that my friend had made for him. The GH, Veloce & WyWires were quite similar in their presentation but we definitely could hear differences amongst the three. Nothing earthshattering but we both came to the same conclusions after our listening session that the differences were audible. However the biggest surprise was with my buddies custom cable...he wanted to save that one for last. After swapping the cable in & cueing up the same music we were both dumbfounded by what we both heard. In fact we both turned & looked at each other. With the custom cable in place the entire soundstage literally shrunk right before our ears. It was so obvious that we both shook our heads in disbelief. Nothing subtle here folks. So please don't mention that digital is simply 1's & 0's & that there shouldn't be any audible sound characteristics between them. The way that different cables transfer those 1's & 0's is where the audible differences lie.

tonyb

Bingo Phil, nailed it.....couldn't agree more.

tonyb

Let me also add where I think people draw the wrong conclusions on this. Mantis...aka Dan, subscribes to the fact as many others do too, that once a cable does it's job in transmitting those 1's and 0's, not much more can be done. The 1's and 0's is a reference to data, how that data is transmitted. Which to some extent, once all that data is transmitted...correctly...and that's key, then Dan and others are right in that assumption.

However, sound itself is not simply transmitted data....not simply 1's and 0's. Way too many other variables come into play that make those 1's and 0's sound different between cables. So even though 2 different cables can transmit the exact same data, they can sound different. Equating 1's and 0's to sound is a slippery slope indeed. It's not a matter of a cable reproducing data that simply isn't there, it's in the representation of that same data. Much like the same data can sound different on different cdp's. Same data, different presentation. Of course more variables come into play in that scenario but different cables work on a smaller scale to offer up different presentations using the same 1's and 0's.

The cable debate will rage on by those unfamiliar with terms like soundstage height,width, depth, tone, air, layering, terms most audiophiles use in their descriptions and absent from all the scientific charts and graphs. Mainly because metallurgy, design, quality of construction play just as much a role in that final sound as the data transmitted. If you think it doesn't, your sadly selling yourself short.

Then we have the argument as to what happens with those 1's and 0's, if transmitted correctly, at the other end. The conversion back to analog which obviously all digital signals need to be. That process alone is a whole other subject but can be just as profound on the final sound as any cable can. All things being equal though, same dac....same front end electronics, the difference in cables can be little or astounding.

I don't claim to have those "golden ears" as some do, matter of fact my hearing is probably on the downhill slide....just ask my wife,she'll tell ya. But I have heard many a high end cable in my travels and can totally accept Fox's comments on his new digital cable. I also have noticed over the decades that the cable naysayers opinions are relative to their wallets. If they can't afford it, then it sounds no better than what they already have. Same can be said for other audio gear. I hold no such constraints, my wallet does, just not my opinions on the matter.

Congrats on the new cable Fox, I'm jealous bro.

polkfarmboy

I wana see a cable **** pic!!!