A Mini-Comparo between Signal Cable Analog One and Two Ic's

zombie boy 2000

I just thought I'd give a little write-up on my thoughts concerning the differences between Signal Cable's Analog One and Analog Two IC's. For the record, the Analog Two's have run from my pre-pro to amp in both cases -- the only change being in making the switch from One's to Two's between the source CDP and the HK avr240.
I learned a lesson here. Not all improvements are across the board. That is to say that where one might hear change for the better in a host of areas, other aspects might take a couple of steps back.

In this case, the Analog Two's excelled in nearly every area -- most noticably the midrange. The Two's seemed even more effortless than the One's (no small feat) -- with smaller details becoming even more apparent, and the dilineation of instruments more three-dimensional. Bass became noticably tighter. Electric guitar distortion actually achieved a musicality that I didn't think my system was capable of. Lucid, smooth, and relaxed are the words that come to mind.

However, a bit of "bite" was compromised in the transistion. The Analog One's really seemed to shine with acoustic guitar pieces -- showcasing plucks and strumming with bravado; everything sharp, alive and focused in this frequency range. Not that the Two's don't do this -- just not with the proficiency the One's exhibited.

It's quite possible this is the result of me mating a traditionally "warm-sounding" pre-pro with a like-minded amp, "smooth and relaxed" cables, and the more laid-back presentation of Polk speakers. Not necessarily overkill, if that's your bag (and it is mine).

Irregardless, the Analog Two's trump the One's in so many other areas, that this minor discrepancy is simply not worth fretting over. This is just my first time learning in this hobby that not all upgrades offer "blanket" improvements. Sometimes, you give a little, so you can take a lot.

Jason

schwarcw

Thanks for the write up! Frank at Signal told me he thinks the 2's are a little smoother. I only own some 2's, never tried the 1's. I was wondering if there was much of a difference.

zombie boy 2000

schwarcw wrote:

Thanks for the write up! Frank at Signal told me he thinks the 2's are a little smoother. I only own some 2's, never tried the 1's. I was wondering if there was much of a difference.

Thanks Carl...
Polkatese actually suggested I do so when he sold me an extra pair of 2's.

Frank ain't lyin' -- they are smoother by a wide margin. IMO they'd be perfect for anyone looking to tame a hyperactive tweeter. It's funny how something should sound simultaneously less aggressive and more
detailed. But then again, I'm just starting out here...:)

steveinaz

What you may be hearing is a more tonally accurate portrayal of the treble with the 2's. You'll end up appreciating less "bite" in the treble---in the long run. Your comment of "less aggressive and more detailed" fits exactly what I hear with my Energy C-9 speakers to a "T."

zombie boy 2000

steveinaz wrote:

What you may be hearing is a more tonally accurate portrayal of the treble with the 2's. You'll end up appreciating less "bite" in the treble---in the long run. Your comment of "less aggressive and more detailed" fits exactly what I hear with my Energy C-9 speakers to a "T."

It's funny you should chime in Steve because after reading your review of the Energy C-9 a couple of months back, I had settled on these being my next speaker purchase. I believe you referred to them as "dark, but exceedingly detailed"....