| Model: | Columbia | | Category: | Cable | | Suggested Retail Price: | $499/meter | | Description: | Analog Interconnect | | Manufacturer URL: | AudioQuest |
A common misconception is that AudioQuest's DBS cables require no break-in. DBS "forms the dielectric", but factory fresh wires do require play time to sound their considerable best. While it speeds the break-in process, DBS is more about making sure the cables perform consistently, and are always "on song" once break-in is complete. My dealer said about 20 hours, but my listening experience suggests closer to 40 hours is ideal, perhaps with continued small refinements up to 100 hours or more.
From the start, the cables were very open and clear. Bass was neither full nor thin, but tight, well-defined, and nicely rounded. However, moving up in frequency, the sound became thinner, drier, and flatter. This was particularly unflattering to late-50s to mid-60s violin tone. As well, the treble was sweet, but too soft, feathery and diffuse. Vocalists were more intelligible, but slightly recessed and depth was relatively flat. The effect made vinyl sound more like CD, and it made CDs sound like early digital masterings that were hard and bright. I thought, "Even if I keep Columbia for the phono preamp, I'll have to keep Quadlink on the CD player!"
With break-in, Columbia became even more clear and more open, while also becoming richer and weightier. Vocalists moved forward in the mix, and soundstage depth approached the Quadlink, which had been my long-time affordable reference. Digital went from being almost unlistenable to being perhaps the best digital I've heard in my home. This is a big deal. I have heavily favored vinyl playback in recent years, finding that digital listening fatigue set in quickly, yet I have hundreds of classical CDs that, even in the midst of the vinyl revival, aren't likely to be reissued any time soon. I've seen it suggested that DBS reduces listening fatigue. Whatever the case, I've found I can once again listen to digital for hours.
Columbia certainly isn't as full as Colorado or Quadlink, but it is not notably thin. Bass, in particular, is less prominent than Colorado or Quadlink, but better defined than either. Running several Columbia through the signal chain (between sources and preamp, and between pre- and power amps), their effect on bass is cumulative. You can find heavier bass and greater slam even in this price range, but what's there has so much naturalness that I'd be churlish to call it anything other than very good -- if not exemplary! There is an addictive quality to it, how its tightness cleans up imaging and improves pitch differentiation.
Compared to either Quadlink or Colorado, I think Columbia's bass is more accurate, and the other two a bit bloated. When playing electronic music like Bjork or Massive Attack, Columbia has the weight, extension, and punch I want, but it's not adding or thickening the bass elsewhere, such as with acoustic jazz and orchestral. Via Columbia, cello and bass fiddles have appropriate weight and a hint of warmth. I have an old Columbia "Great Performances" LP (the record label, not the interconnect) of Bernstein conducting Copland. Side Two starts with the ever popular "Fanfare for the Common Man", which, through Quadlink or Colorado, sounds like the worst version of the "Fanfare" I've heard -- jumbled and disorganized, and something of a puzzle given the excellence of the rest of the music. The way Columbia cleans up the bass drums and makes sense of them, this performance of "Fanfare" at least becomes a credible interpretation! This quality even extends to Iommi's thick-sounding guitar on Black Sabbath LPs (Rhino reissues), revealing more about the playing and the recording than you may be used to hearing, yet without robbing the music of its punch or grit or those qualities that make it "heavy" metal.
In fact, Columbia do this with every recording I've thrown at them, cracking the difficult ones by clarifying performances and interpretations, and injecting all recordings with a new vitality. They reveal enough information to make recordings and sources sound more like they are, so they are transparent to the truth of the recording and the associated gear. Your gear will sound more like you know it to be, while you may be surprised how different from each other recordings start to sound. The clarity of Columbia easily telegraphs when the system has warmed up. They will also clearly reveal the effects of using other cables upstream -- I tried a mix-and-match approach with Quadlink and Colorado on the front-end components, as well as swapping power cables.
Here's where listeners will split on these cables. My inclination is to say that Quadlink add a little heft, whereas Columbia allow the inherent weight of the recording or equipment to come forth. You can imagine my surprise, then, when I found Colorado to sound more like Quadlink than Columbia! If Columbia is right, then Quadlink and Colorado must be wrong.
Both Quadlink and Colorado have larger soundstaging with greater depth. Both have significantly more bass energy than Columbia, but they are also heavier with a bit of overhang. If they are not neutral, then they must be voiced from the bottom up. I think Colorado ultimately stumbles under its own weight, while Columbia is lithe and muscular.
Because they are leaner -- not lean, per se -- Columbia sound more open and detailed than Quadlink or Colorado. Direct comparison reveals this not to be entirely the case, but the result of their different emphases. To paraphrase George Orwell, with Quadlink and Colorado, all frequencies are presented equally, but some more equally than others.
By contrast, Columbia seem egalitarian in presentation, and not in an "Animal Farm" way. It emphasizes everything equally (or favors nothing particularly), which gives the impression of hearing "everything". All at once. All the time. No matter how complex the arrangement. Columbia better let me hear the interplay of multiple instruments, which is wonderful for classical and jazz. Everything hangs together with a tightness and togetherness. They speak with one voice from top to bottom. They are superbly coherent.
One of my favorite systems from the past consisted of a Krell KAV-250cd/2, Krell KAV-300iL, and Magnepan 1.6QR speakers. Those with much experience with Maggies know how well they can place instruments in the room, especially piano (where you can feel the soundboard vibrating in three-dimensional space) and Kodo drums, where the vibrating body of the drum flaps your pant legs. I remember putting guests in the sweet spot and playing "Poem of Chinese Drum" (CD, Yim Hok-Man: Master of Chinese Percussion), and seeing the look of astonishment on their faces as the drums manifested themselves in the room.
Like my memory of the Krell-Maggie system, once setup was optimized, Columbia is very physical in the way it puts instruments in the room. I think this is because Columbia tighten up the presentation, roughly analogous to the tightness of planar speakers whose thin diaphragms move but a fraction of an inch. I'm not going to say it's "as good as" the Maggie system, memory being a bit too distant, but I didn't think I would get so close to recreating piano or drums in my room as I am now with dynamic speakers that are "affordable". I thought I'd either have to go back to panel speakers, or dynamic speakers that cost more than $10K/pair.
My sense is that DBS improves low-level articulation and combats listening fatigue, even though more information comes through. If you play music loudly, the advantage of DBS is less obvious, especially in A-B comparisons, but at moderate volumes and over long listening sessions, DBS keeps things alive within the soundstage, and better preserves scale and depth. This means you can listen less loudly and still have a satisfying experience, and facilitates late-night listening if your habitation requires low volumes in the evening. More to the point, in a concert hall, even with distant seating, you hear everything, from the most delicate playing to the quietest coughing or sniffing. One area where home playback can fall flat is the loss of this very low-level detail, at least at levels that are realistic, or comfortable, for the louder passages. DBS, as implemented in Columbia, takes steps toward bridging this gulf between reality and recording. (With Colorado, it gets better still, but not without compromise.)
Caveats? Columbia make a solid-state system sound more solid state, with great immediacy and clarity. Unlike overtly warm-sounding cables, they will reveal any residual hardness or brightness in the upper midrange/lower treble; the so-called "presence region". Thus, you may find the rest of your gear, or cables, are not equal to the task. However, a lot of gear, like the Serblin-era Sonus faber designs, exhibit mild shelving in the presence region, so this will not be a problem with associated equipment that is at least well-matched. Columbia are controlled, and always remain composed. As a full orchestra cranks up, Columbia let you hear everything without trying, yet Quadlink and Colorado have a greater sense of macro-dynamic swing (from loud to really loud) with more bass, so they "cut loose" with greater swagger. Quadlink or Colorado have a closer perspective and larger soundstaging. Columbia requires more volume to come fully on song, and in general seems more sensitive to the "right" volume for each recording (too low is fine, but too loud is objectionable -- although this again suggests great transparency to recordings). As well, there is a sense of greater naturalness and ease through cables like Quadlink and Colorado. Finally, Columbia can do subtlety and nuance, but don't have the masterful sense of touch you get from Cardas. It's better than Colorado in that respect, but there's an extra measure of delicacy to be had.
My take is you're getting near reference level performance in many areas at less than reference level pricing, particularly in the way Columbia couple abundant detail with smoothness, so, at their best, the sound is never harsh, forward, or fatiguing. It is not the type of smoothness that is flaccid or rolled off at the frequency extremes. Columbia give the sense of sparkling clarity and infinite detail you hear from statement-level systems at dealers and audio shows.
Columbia are an exceptional value, and well worth the premium over entry-level interconnects. I understand why Colorado is the statement copper interconnect in the line, but I don't think Colorado is as cannily voiced. In fact, I might call Colorado the least AudioQuest-sounding AudioQuest product of my experience. With Columbia, there is a top-to-bottom tightness, seamlessness, and togetherness. For many listeners, the clarity, coherency, and immediacy of Columbia will significantly increase the intensity and the musical communication of the listening experience.
| Product Weakness: | Favors balance and control over the last bit of naturalness, ease, and large macrodynamic swings. You can find more nuance, touch, and delicacy, but this is nitpicking. At the price point, they do so much so well, and the sense of balance remains | | Product Strengths: | Top-to-bottom neutrality, linearity, and coherency with an open, detailed sound, and a smooth, slightly laid back perspective. |
Associated Equipment for this Review:| Amplifier: | Musical Fidelity A308cr (Recapped with Nichicon/Muse) | | Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | Musical Fidelity A308cr | | Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Musical Fidelity A308cr; Rega P3-24, TTPSU, Ortofon 2M Bronze, Groovetracer Reference Subplatter & Acrylic Platter; Expressimo Brass End Stub & Half Moon Counterweight; Musical Fidelity kW Phono | | Speakers: | JMlab Electra 915.1 | | Cables/Interconnects: | Cardas Quadlink, AudioQuest Columbia, AudioQuest Colorado ICs, Cardas Neutral Reference, AudioQuest CV-8, AudioQuest Gibraltar Speaker; Cardas Quadlink & manufacturer's own Power. | | Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Classical, Jazz, Rock, Metal, Folk, Electronica | | Room Size (LxWxH): | 16 x 12 x 9 | | Room Comments/Treatments: | Upholstered furniture, large area rug | | Time Period/Length of Audition: | 4 Months | | Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
|
