⌈ KRAKOW SONIC TOWNSHIP is an informal group of music lovers, audiophiles, friends, meeting to learn something new about audio products, records, music, etc. The idea for KTS was born in 2005, although its roots go back several years. This is its 140th meeting. ⌋

EXT YEAR the Crystal Cable brand will celebrate its 20th anniversary. Together with the Siltech brand, it belongs to International Audio Holding, jointly run by married couple GABI VAN DER KLEIJ-RYNVELD and EDWIN VAN DER KLEY RYNVELD. The designer and chief designer in both cases is Edwin, but in the case of Crystal most of the important decisions are made by Gabi (more in the interview → HERE).

We test cables from this company regularly in "High Fidelity", and both of our guests have been to Krakow and meetings of the Krakow Sonic Society many times - they are also members. This time we wanted to take a look at the full range of power cables belonging to the top Art Series. It includes three lines: Monet, van Gogh and da Vinci. Their names correspond to the names of painters whose style, Gabi says, is meant to reflect the sound of each series. Moreover, the press materials emphasize that each of these artists was at the front of an "aesthetic revolution" and that they set "new standards of artistic expression."

▌ Art Series

HERE’S WHAT MANUFACTURER SAY ABOUT ITS POWER CABLES from Art Series:

Power cables connect your hi-fi system to the power source by transmitting power from the power outlet to the device. They should be capable of transmitting high peak currents while being as "neutral" as possible, featuring the least electrical interference and mechanical noise. This leads to optimal sound quality. The key to ultra-low-loss power transmission is outstanding conductors, plugs, shielding and insulation. Moreover, for a hi-fi system to be able to reveal its potential, power cables must have the lowest possible ground resistance and correct geometry.

⸜ An introduction to Hi-Fi Systems. Part 1: Cables, → CRYSTALCABLE.com, accessed: 10.07.2023.

Easier said than done. There are literally hundreds of cabling manufacturers on the market, and each of them believes that he is the one who holds the patent for the "best power cable". And many of them achieve really very good results sometimes even outstanding ones. Having used cables from both Siltech and Crystal Cable in my reference system, I can say with a clear conscience that both of these brands belong to the latter group.

Art Series cables share the same conductors, shielding and connectors, differing only in the number of bundles in a given model. Their design, except for models designed for audio files transfer, is based on three types of geometry: coaxial ("Coax"), triple coaxial ("Triax") and ground bundles ("Ground"). The first and third are used for interconnects and power cables, while the most advanced is used only for power cables.

The basic conductor used in this series is ultra-crystalline silver with very long crystals (monocrystalline silver), bearing the name "Infinite Crystal Silver" (iCS) in the company's nomenclature. The material is cast in-house at the factory according to specifications that are the result of 20 years of experience. As Edwin said during the meeting, the monocrystalline structure makes it possible to bypass the problems generated when electrons pass from crystal to crystal - such a structure is similar to that of glass.

These "crystallization points" introduce distortion into the signal. Monocrystalline material costs much more than classical material. Crystal Cable uses 6N-purity silver, which costs ten times more than simply purified silver.

Each bundle has three layers, separated by two screens made of silver-plated copper and insulated with Kapton and PTFE (generic name - Teflon). In the center of the bundle is a solid wire ("solid core"), on which the first screen is wrapped, on which in turn are wrapped a bundle of thin wires, another screen and another bundle of wires. Transparent Teflon is used on the outside. In the Monet we find two Triax-type bundles, in the van Gogh four, and in the da Vinci six, wrapped around a centrally placed tube.

The cables look beautiful. They are small, seem delicate, and yet have perfect mechanical structure. Thanks to their mechanical structure, they fit very well in the system. Attention is drawn to the gold-plated screw-on element on the cable, which bears the name of the series, model and serial number, as well as the plugs, from Oyaide. The cables are packaged in superbly crafted boxes, which include a thank you card handwritten by Gabi.

▌ How we listened

ART SERIES MONET
˻ 27 900 PLN/1,5 m ˺
↨
ART SERIES VAN GOGH
˻ 52 900 PLN/1,5 m ˺
↨
ART SERIES DA VINCI
˻ 84 900 PLN/1,5 m ˺

THE MEETING'S IDEA WAS SIMPLE: we listened to power cables from three levels in turn, starting with the Monet and ending with the da Vinci. But in order to make the comparison as complete as possible - after all, power cables behave somewhat differently when working with signal sources and with amplifiers, with analog and digital devices - we changed three cables simultaneously each time: to the Aurender N20 file player (test → HERE), the Ayon Audio Stratos DAC and preamplifier, and the Accuphase P-7300 power amplifier.

To give ensure the best possible environment for them, all other cables in the system, including the Ethernet cable, also came from Art Series.

ROUTER
↓
Crystal Cable da Vinci Ethernet cable
↓
Aurender N20
↓
Crystal Cable da Vinci AES/EBU
↓
Ayon Audio Stratos DAC
↓
Crystal Cable da Vinci XLR
↓
Accuphase P-7300
↓
Crystal Cable da Vinci Speaker Cable
↓
Dynaudio Confidence C-4 Signature

As you can see, we focused on the digital part of Tom's system, where the meeting took place, and the signal source was a file player and the Qobuz and Tidal streaming services. We selected the following tracks for the listening test:

˻ 1 ˺ FRANK SINATRA, When You're Smiling (The Whole World Smiles With You) from: Frank Sinatra, Swingin’ Session!!!, Columbia/Qobuz, WAV 16/44,1.
˻ 2 ˺ LABRINTH, Never Felt So Alone from: Labrinth, Never Felt So Alone (feat. Billie Eilish), Columbia/Qobuz WAV 24/44,1.
˻ 3 ˺ DOMINIC MILLER, Clandesin from: Dominic Miller, Vagabound, ECM Recorda/Qobuz WAV 24/88,2 (review → HERE).
˻ 4 ˺ MARIA JOÃO PIRES, Chopin: The Nocturnes, Deutsche Grammophon/Tidal FLAC 16/44,1.

▌ SOUND

˻ PART 1 ˼
→ MONET vs VAN GOGH ˻ 1 ˺, ˻ 2 ˺

The listening test involved comparing Monet and van Gogh cables, and we listened to the two music pieces twice each - the first listening involved 10-second samples, and the second two-minute samples.

⸜ DAMIAN Admittedly, two days ago I acquired a cold, and I can hardly hear anything, but I will try to describe my impressions anyway. I think I heard differences in favor of the second cable. Sinatra's voice ˻ 1 ˺, was deeper, and when the overall level was raised, the attack of the sound was stronger, more unambiguous. Well, and everything was more detailed. The surprise was that these were big changes, not small shifts.

⸜ GABI As for me, the first ten seconds were enough to have a picture of the whole. With the van Gogh cable the stereo imaging improved, the power of the voice was better more refined, it was not simply sustained, but had a punch. The Monet had that too, but the more expensive cable had more "body" to it all.

The rhythm was also better, that could be heard well. And in a Sinatra track, that's important. But not only with Sinatra, but also with the piece in which BILLIE EILISH sang (Labrinth, Never Felt So Alone ˻ 2 ˺ - ed.). Rhythm for me, as a musician, is the most basic thing. If it is maintained better, the whole piece sounds better. And it was better with van Gogh.

⸜ EDWIN So in general, the music with van Gogh had better flow. The sound was bigger and more natural. In my opinion, the differences were not great, it was not like night and day. But that's the way it is in high-end, each level change comes in small increments. What I heard was quite clear, because the better fluidity brought out better rhythmicity, as Gabi mentioned.

I'm not sure about the bass, because I have the impression that the bass sounded better with the Monet, the first cable. Maybe it's because when the bass hits in the Eilish track there's a lot of it, and van Gogh plays the bass harder than Monet, which might ˻ 1 ˺ have made me think there was just too much of it. But it wasn't a better sound, just different. The best way to compare sound, that’s how we do it, is to listen to the first ten seconds of a piece. But with Sinatra we wouldn't have heard the voice then - and that's the most important part of this recording. With van Gogh, it was bigger and fuller.

⸜ RAFAŁ As for me, the differences were not very big. But I also heard that with the second cable, the van Gogh, the sound was a bit cleaner, and the treble was better. It was as if a slight haze had been removed from the sound. It was better sound, I have no doubt, but, as I say, the differences weren't really big for me.

⸜ DOMINIKA It's hard to disagree with Rafal, because there wasn't a huge difference. The vocal with van Gogh was more expressive, its depth was better, it was just cooler. Except that, as I say, I didn't hear a spectacular change. But, obviously, the more enjoyable was listening with the second cable. The presentation was more immersive, perhaps due to the fact that with the second cable the vocals were more prominent and stronger.

⸜ ARTUR REICH – Audio Video Summit I won't hide the fact that I liked the sound of the latter cable more. I found the first one a little less clean at times, especially with ˻ 1 ˺ Sinatra (and compared to the second one). Especially with the brass in the Sinatra recording. In general, I preferred the second presentation. With that said, I would have preferred longer comparisons than the 10 seconds suggested by Edwin, for me it would have been more comfortable.

⸜ JANUSZ TUCHOWSKI – Audio Video Summit For me, these ten seconds are also not enough. In that time, something starts to form in my head, but immediately runs out, making me lack the time to formulate longer observations. But I agree, the second presentation was better. It's a bigger stage, more weighting. But the differences were not very big - though audible.

⸜ MARCIN OLEŚ To be honest, I prefer not to know what I happen to be listening to. And that's because I may be biased by the price. Having said that, however, I must add that - in my opinion - the differences between these cables were spectacular. I'll talk about the music, not the sound. The strings with the van Gogh cable on the ˻ 1 ˺ Sinatra album were spectacular. The first one played them quite lightly. Also the saxophone sounded live. The same goes for what Arthur mentioned - the slight uncleanness of the brass section audible at times with the Monet, that with the other cable disappeared. But not that it was a cable problem, because the sound was also excellent, and van Gogh showed that it can be done better.

⸜ ROBERT SZKLARZ – Nautilus In my opinion, the difference was quite large. Keep in mind that we are only comparing power cables, and the rest of the system is the same. If we changed the whole system, the difference would be huge. But this time, even with just the power cables, the difference was very big, mainly with the vocals and the bass. I think the Monet showed better bass control, but the overall quality, like timbre, etc., was better with the van Gogh.

⸜ TOMEK FOLTA For the first ten seconds, what caught my attention most was the change in the soundstage. And with the van Gogh it was much deeper - and I heard it not even sitting in my favorite "sweet spot", but from the side.

The second important thing, when we listened to the tracks longer, it included the moment when all those Sinatra’s band instruments came in. With such a high level of sound we listened to with the first cable it was a bit annoying, there was too much of everything. It was not easy to listen to. With van Gogh it was acceptable even to me, and not annoying. But, as some have already said, in my opinion the difference was not that great.

⸜ BARTOSZ The second cable was simply better. The differences were not big for me, but they could be easily pointed out. The Van Gogh resulted in a smoother, more pleasant sound - and I say this based on the first ten seconds of listening. With longer listening, I focused on other elements, and here the vocals were clearly better in their presence with the second cable.

˻ PART 2 ˼

→ VAN GOGH vs DA VINCI ˻ 1 ˺, ˻ 2 ˺, ˻ 3 ˺, ˻ 4 ˺

The listening was about comparing van Gogh and da Vinci cables, this time we listened to four tracks, and listened to about two-minute long samples.

⸜ DAMIAN After each track I listened to, I had the impression that I liked them more and more. I don't know if it was because with each cable the sound definition improved, or if I became more and more familiar with the tracks.

⸜ DOMINIKA As for me, there was a much bigger difference between the first and second cables than between the second and third. With da Vinci there were a few nuances that were better, but it wasn't a huge change. With ˻ 1 ˺ Sinatra, the stage got bigger, and the instruments were clearer. The vocals were more strongly exposed, and everything was bigger and more rhythmic. With the Chopin ˻ 4 ˺, recording, I didn't hear as much difference between van Gogh and da Vinci, while the transition from Monet made a big difference. With van Gogh, the piano was soothing, gentle, pleasant.

⸜ WOJTEK You felt taken care of. :)

⸜ DOMINIKA Exactly right, I didn't feel any compulsion, which was there a little bit with Monet. And then, with da Vinci I had the same thing that's why this second switch didn't seem so important to me. I can't say why, but it did. With the third cable, on the other hand, Billie's voice was softer and friendlier, but it was the second version that took me on a journey, while with da Vinci everything was so smoothed out it was too polished. Maybe it was the most genuine, that is, the way the recording sounds like, and yet I didn't like it that much at all.

⸜ JANUSZ Much has already been said, while in my opinion with da Vinci music sounded the best to me. And even the piece with ˻ 2 ˺ Eilish, which I don't listen to and didn't like, made sense to me, which I found difficult to do before. The sound did not tire me down. Sinatra sounded phenomenal, with a beautiful hall and a sustained voice. The Chopin with da Vinci, on the other hand, just didn't take care of me. But, it was still very effortless sounding and the stage extended.

But it is also as Dominica said, that is, with van Gogh the sound was vital, dynamic and with da Vinci everything was already so smoothed out, sublime that it was too much. It was beautiful, effortless, but all too illusionistic.

⸜ RAFAŁ It's interesting, but I had the same impression, that is, I enjoyed listening more with van Gogh. I could hear perfectly well that the da Vinci was the better cable, because everything was bigger in it, there was more of everything. But, for example, with Sinatra, the sound was a bit too clear, as if with this cable you could already hear everything there was in the recording, and this is not at all always the goal, at least for me.

⸜ ARTUR My impression was that the music, with the changes of cables, up to da Vinci, was more and more liberated. Before, it seemed compressed to me, and with the third cable it freed itself from its cage. Big-band sound can be aggressive, to the point where the trumpets wheeze in your head, but this is realism. And with da Vinci the trumpet sounded harsh and aggressive, but that's the way it should be, I guess. The most important thing, however, was that everything was casual with it. In my opinion, in relation to Monet there is a huge gap, and in relation to van Gogh still a big change. With da Vinci, the sound has jumped to a completely different level. And all that happened when switching only power cables.

Which reminded me of a story. A friend of mine rented a CD player a long time ago, probably a decade or so back, and after several hours of listening, he was completely heartbroken. The sound was one big jazzy noise.

He called me to ask me to do something about it, and although we made a lot of changes, it didn't help. So he asked Robert, who was present, to bring him another amplifier, that maybe it was to blame. And Robert instead of an amplifier brought a black briefcase with cables and said he would straighten it out. I laughed quietly at this, because at the time I didn't believe in such stories, I stood firm on the position that it was the devices that played, not the cables.

But - OK, we were already so tired that we agreed to make a change. Robert replaced the power strip and two power cables with Siltechs and something shocking just happened, the frog turned into a prince. The clamor disappeared, the music started to flow, and to me it was a breakthrough discovery: that power cables can spoil or improve the sound so incredibly.

⸜ BARTOSZ For them the case is clear - da Vinci is much better than both previous cables. The best indicator of how much of a change there was in the cables this time was how much longer we listened to all the tracks, going beyond those conventional two minutes. We were more relaxed in the process - after all, when we plugged in the da Vinci cables listened to Sinatra ˻ 1 ˺ in its entirety, no one let us know to stop. That's an indicator you can rely on.

As for specifics, the difference between van Gogh and da Vinci was much more pronounced than between van Gogh and Monet. You could hear it right away. There was more sound, which is why we thought we had set the volume higher than before, yet this was not the case, the levels were the same. There was more going on, and Sinatra's vocals were amazing in how they rang out. Of course, we have to take into account that all three of these cables represent the high-end class, and from our conversation it might seem that the cheaper ones are poor products - that's completely beside the point. But if I were to spend big money on cables - for me - only da Vinci would make sense.

⸜ TOMEK I have to agree with Bartek and say that van Gogh and da Vinci are much better than Monet. I'm glad that we were now able to listen to a longer excerpt of not only Sinatra, but also pieces selected by Dominika and me (˻ 2 ˺, ˻ 3 ˺).

What I really liked with DOMINIK MILLER ˻ 3 ˺, was that the cable did a great job of bringing out something that we often talk about but rarely hear, namely the beautiful black background behind the instruments. For me, it was much better with da Vinci and with van Gogh than with Monet. There are, of course, other differences between the two, but what these first two cables have in common is just that wonderful, velvety background. Also, in the LABRINTH ˻ 2 ˺ piece, the stage was bigger and denser, which I liked a lot. Again, both of these cables showed this better than the Monet.

⸜ ROBERT Well, yes, I received it similarly to Tom, but with one change: the difference between van Gogh and da Vinci seemed greater to me than between van Gogh and Monet. On CHOPIN ˻ 4 ˺ the depth of the stage was delightful, there was more room for the instruments, it was exciting. And what captured me was that the sound from the da Vinci rang out naturally, and the whole thing sounded so good that we lost track of time and didn't wonder how it sounded, we just listened to the music.

For the first time I made notes for myself, because there was so much going on here. With the Miller there was significantly better bass control with the da Vinci cable, and the stage was better ordered as well. You could hear the depth of the stage better. Well, and the decay was denser, nicer. With the track where Billie Eilish ˻ 2 ˺ sang, the bass was stronger, but still under control. Earlier, with Monet, the control was better than with van Gogh, but the overall sound was less exciting and less natural. But the last presentation showed that the two can be combined.

I'm very impressed with the differences, and I've never had the opportunity to compare the three cables directly before.

⸜ MARCIN It's a good thing I had time to think, because I needed to think about what I heard. While with the Impressionists you can talk about thinking in sound images, this name da Vinci - coincidentally or not coincidentally - seems apt. After all, he was not just a painter, and perhaps even a painter in the least. I don't want to say that this is a different conception of sound, but here we are no longer talking only about sound painting, because here music also appears.

I interpret this to mean that with Sinatra the "response" of the hall showed itself in a phenomenal way. Suddenly we could hear that we were in the hall with them, and I had not heard that before. On Miller, I no longer heard the guitar as a timbre but the whole body. And for the first time - even though all three cables are top end, as Bartek said - the resolution in the low frequencies was fantastic. For the first time, I heard the bass drum and double bass separately, and when they didn't play perfectly evenly. The Le Buisson studio where this was recorded is quite dry, and here they managed to find something that made it sound soft. With da Vinci, "headroom" appeared everywhere, which wasn't there before.

But I also had this reflection that these cables are starting to show the system itself. And in some cases with the da Vinci I heard a problem with the high frequencies, while I didn't hear them with the van Gogh, which covered them slightly. That's why when choosing I would recommend caution and matching cables to your system.

⸜ TOMEK It's interesting what you say, because this system has been built all my life by a man, namely me, who hates the bright top and who loves the darkness.

⸜ WOJTEK Or maybe the problem is that we have to choose between illusion and the pursuit of reality. In my opinion, it is absolutely impossible to transfer a live event to your home. The only thing we can do is to try, to transfer similar emotions, and this cannot be done 1:1, we have to use different methods that allow us to do so.

⸜ GABI Indeed, the problem is that each performance is unique. Just before we came to Krakow I had a recording session - I prepared material for a CD that will be included in the print edition of the German magazine "Stereo". I played, of course, Chopin.

At home I have a Bösendorfer piano, 1.7 meters long, which I play every day. I prepared the material for myself in my living room, and when I went into the big hall I had to rearrange myself, because you have to play quite differently there to express the same thing. Then the material has to be compressed so that it can be played at home, and so on. So the question of what we expect from a system is a valid one, and I would tend to say that the sound from a recording is an illusion - the closer to the truth, the better, but an illusion nonetheless.

⸜ EDWIN I can’t agree either with Gabi, or with Wojtek.

⸜ BARTOSZ OK, but you have to remember that you are in Krakow and your wife is present. :)

⸜ EDWIN It would even be a funny title for a book or memoir: How I got divorced in Krakow.

But to the point. I understand your arguments, but from my point of view it all looks a little different. When we are in a concert hall we are dealing with a live experience. To be honest, very often the sound from concert halls, and we are very often at concerts in the best venues in the Netherlands, including the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, where the acoustics are fantastic, seems worse to me than at my home.

Why? Because there is a wide stage, but without precision in showing the instruments, you don't hear exactly where what is located, you have a very deep stage and you are usually sitting quite far away, so the sound comes to you with a delay. And you don't realize it. When you record it with a microphone, the sound reaches everyone at the same time, which is not exactly the same as we experience in a concert hall.

So at home you get better precision, accuracy and a more accurate soundstage. There are no problems with sound levels being too high. I sometimes measure the sound intensity with my iPhone and when I sit in the fourth row it goes up to 110-112 dB. When I sit in the tenth it's still 110 dB. So the extinction of sound with distance from its source does not happen, because it is amplified by reflections. Therefore, top sound engineers are able to capture this image and record it. In this way they create a whole new reality. The idea is to create something that our brain will recognize as truth.

Is it realistic? - It depends. Like with photography and painting. Does it help that a photo has a resolution of 10 million pixels and is more believable than a painting? Usually not, it's the painting that seems more real to us in rendering reality. And this is because the brain learns to recognize patterns and later seeks them in new situations, "reprogramming itself." That's why I think it's nonsense to claim that very low sounds "don't fit" in small rooms and therefore we can't hear them. Technically - this is the case. But realistically, the brain hearing harmonics creates for itself a picture of the fundamental sound, as if it heard it.

In audio it's the same, except that it's important to register as much detail, small information, as possible. Because they determine whether we recognize sound as real. That's why it's so important that cables carry even the smallest information without distortion and without phase shift. Otherwise the harmonics are no longer in harmony with the underlying sound and we don't recognize it as real. And this is what we try to achieve in our cables, whether Siltech or Crystal Cable.

»«

The 140th MEETING of the Krakow Sonic Society was special also because two new members became part of it: MARCIN OLEŚ and RAFAŁ. We are very happy about it and thank them for their trust! We hope that we will not let them down and that in ten or even twenty years they will still be happy with what happened on that day. ●