Dynamique Audio NEO 2 - 3.5mm to RCA analogue cable review

www.dynamiqueaudio.com/neo-2/neo-2-3.5mm-interconnect/kjo/products.aspx


First visual impressions


When you finally take out the cable itself two things are immediately noticeable:

- firstly the cable is very light and very bendable, what can be very useful

- secondly, the RCA connectors (plugs) are very heavy, giving you the
impression of reliable solidity.

Summary of all together is really impressive stylish look, as well reliability of used materials. So you can right away say that Dynamique Audio is really very serious with making those cables.


First audio impressions through speakers

My first audio impression once I plugged in the Dynamique Audio NEO 2 and start to listen was that Daniel, the director of Dynamique Audio, really achieved to realize what he is talking about. Actually, my expectations were even surpassed.

Now I will try to describe with my own words what was for me most noticeable. I will just focus on what was really obvious at first listening, as after a few days of experience with something, our perception also change, because our brain adapt to new experience in order to become more able to recognize all sort of new details. But I think that through so called “burn in” process, the cable itself doesn’t change that much, as our perception of it.

I immediately noticed obvious refinement of sound and very listenable smoothness in “upper register” (higher frequencies), what I find very important that higher frequencies are not to sharp when you are getting very open airy sound with a lot of details. If you are getting very analytical accurate, detailed presentation of sound in higher frequencies, then you can also get this subjective feeling of so called “dry sound”. And this can become tiring for listening after a while. If detailed accuracy isn’t presented in the right way, it simply becomes too much fatiguing. So it’s excellent solution to get more smoothness here. I didn’t know until now that this can be so elegantly solved with the right cable.

I have a lot of professional audio software plug-ins, as well audio software from enthusiastic programmers. And I did made quite a lot experiments in this area. That’s how I know differences in sound. Otherwise I must be professional reviewer in order to get access to many different cables, as logically only through comparing you become able to understand (hear) what is what. 

Dynamique Audio NEO 2 offers stereo image, which is really more like 3D presentation of sound where is emphasized the smoothness of sound. In sense of switching from 16 bit to 24 bit quality.

As well I discovered another very obvious positive impression once I start testing with recordings of lower quality (mp3 in 320kbs and lower).

Firstly I was much more able to notice the difference of FLAC and ALAC files compared to mp3 files, but then I find out, that this overall refinement, plus smoothness in higher frequencies is actually helping very much to give quality there, where is supposed to be not that much of it. Well, that’s was very nice positive surprise. As usually you are expecting that good Hi-Fi gear is revealing lower quality recordings more in negative sense. But here I have total opposite personal experience. My only rational explanation of this observation would be very listenable smoothness in higher frequencies, which “softness away” all possible harshness in lower quality recordings. So if it happens, that you still have a lot of lower quality recordings, mp3’s like 320kbs or lower, it will make them sound better. For example Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II is not that much forgiving in this area.

Compared to Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II I also noticed following differences. The overall feeling of depth and tight, as well smoother bass was “just technically” relatively similar, as there was noticeable difference that Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II is more inclined toward “sharpness” (more “kicking” in lower, bass frequencies, plus livelier midrange) and Dynamique Audio NEO 2 is more inclined toward smoothness and overall refinement of sound. Meaning, that Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II is a bit more lively energetic, while Dynamique Audio NEO 2 is more cultivated, like knowledgeable gentleman with kind attitude to details, which you can’t feel boring, as it’s always comfortable enjoyable.

Saying that, it become obvious, that Dynamique Audio NEO 2 is very appropriate for music with a lot of high frequencies and a lot of details in acoustics, like classical music (especially violin) and acoustic guitar, as well vocals (when having high tones). Actually, everything what is “string based”, also rock and blues becomes more enjoyable for listening.

While in Drum’n’bass, Trip-hop, Hip-hop, Lounge type of music, Downtempo and Chillout, Nu-jazz (electronic jazz) or electronic music in general with exception of ambient electronic I find out that I prefer Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II over Dynamique Audio NEO 2, simply because it’s a bit more energetic and offers “more kicking”. Means, everything “drums based” sounds livelier and more “convincing” with Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II. As smooth is very good for higher frequencies, but it’s not that much good, if the bass region suddenly becomes too smooth (not enough tight).

In “keyboard based” music (like piano or accordion) I find out that is very much depending from recordings what would be more appropriate. If recordings already has a bit sharper connotation then of course the Dynamique Audio NEO 2 is more desirable, because it will soften away all possible “sharper” edges. But if the recordings are already very smooth (having softer connotation), then Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II seems more appropriate.

But I love both of them equally as I feel lucky, because I am listening to all types of music. And anyway I’m intending the Dynamique Audio NEO 2 for use between my DAC and headphone amplifier where I usually
listen to more subtle music, like ambient and vocals, as well classic. Occasionally watching the movies where is usually lower quality audio, therefore I will definitely benefit of smoother 3D characteristics of Dynamique Audio NEO 2.

I know that cables don’t create anything. They are just transferring the signal. But in order how they are made, how included materials are used in them, they are transferring the signal differently.

Compared to lower priced QED Performance J2P (Graphite) 3.5mm mini-jack to 2 RCA analogue cable
(www.futureshop.co.uk/qed-performance-j2p-35mm-minijack-to-2-rca-cable-15m-graphite-p-1172.html)

Most noticeable differences:

 - I was really astonished that between lower priced (about
£25) QED Performance J2P (Graphite) 3.5mm mini-jack to 2 RCA analogue cable and
higher priced (about £50) Dynamique Audio NEO 2 3.5mm mini-jack to 2 RCA
analogue cable is literary day and night difference. So at least in this case
when you are paying for something 100% more money, you are really getting 100%
more effect.
- Obviously more 3D presentation of sound where is emphasized
the smoothness of sound, which was not present before. Again in sense of
switching from 16 bit to 24 bit quality.
- Obviously more depth, more subtle tight, as well more
smoother bass as before
- Obviously more details on all frequencies.
- More smoother airy presentation (in sense of more open
sound-stage, also impression of bigger sound-stage).
- All together, obviously more stereo image in all meanings
of this word
- Once you get better cable like Dynamique Audio NEO 2, then
you can really hear, that the QED Performance J2P (Graphite) is literary dull
and musically dead cable.

First audio impressions through headphones

Here was a bit different story as the way of listening is
much more direct, intimate through headphones.

 First very obvious impression was, that “there” and “here”
was much more organically interconnected. It wasn’t just big soundstage and
then musical tons hanging on different positions. They were going into each
another, but still keeping enough room for identification of position.

 I was getting the impression that Dynamique Audio NEO 2 and
Philips Fidelio X1 are made for each another, as Dynamique Audio NEO 2 is
smooth and very kind to details and Philips Fidelio X1 is very musical. So they
were literary playing with each another, creating the surplus of enjoyment in
music. In this sense you can’t speak about neutrality, but in the same time you
can’t say that there is too much of bass or too much of midrange or too much of
higher frequencies. Everything was nicely balanced, with addition of additional
flair. I find very nice, that even “up front” feeling of Fidelio X1 was
balanced as well. So the characteristics of Philips Fidelio X1 were even more
emphasized in all their positive aspects, while all “negative” aspects were in
this case “balanced away”. That’s a point, when you start to feel “milk and
honey” in you mouths.


Oh, that I don’t forget to mention. The increased level of details in movies is
simply amazing. And because of smooth character of the Dynamique Audio NEO 2 it
never becomes intrusive.

 So I must put on AKG K 240 MKII for to hear the situation
from different point of view. Well okay those “entry level” AKG headphones doesn’t’
have so big soundstage than Fidelio X1 and they are a bit more “power hungry”
(55 ohms) than Fidelio X1 (30 ohms), but they are definite more neutral (there
is no additional flair). In this case the refinement of sound (more clarity of
details, more open airy presentation, more feeling of subtle control) is more
noticeable (not that much the musicality). There is a reason why some
headphones are in the category of studio headphones. The sound isn’t that much engaging,
but more calm down and serious. It doesn’t drag you into dancing. It leaves you
“the personal space” for either really observing the music or just have it for
background listening while you are working. In this case I wouldn’t say that
the AKG K 240 MKII and Dynamique Audio NEO 2 are made for each another, as that
entry level AKG’s have too limited capacity in order to express the full
potential of the Dynamique Audio NEO 2.


But on basis of Dynamique Audio NEO 2 main audio characteristics, I would say
that it should go very well together with all headphones who are very
analytical in their nature, as for example AKG K701.

I wouldn’t pair them with Sennheiser HD 598, if the review from WHAT HI-FI is
true in claiming that they are too much sophisticated and too mild-mannered, as
then they will become even more sophisticated in all frequencies. What is okay,
if somebody might like exactly this.

I feel sad, that I can’t test it with GRADO headphones, as I think, according
to their reviews (very musical and detailed) they will go wonderfully together
with the Dynamique Audio NEO 2.

 But with those “few things” that I have for comparing with
each another I must say that I’m very surprised how much difference you can achieve
with different pairings.

 Therefore is really necessary that you are building your own
experiences for to really feel what is better suitable for your own personal
preferences.

 All those reviews (even those from professionals, who have loads
of experiences) are merely serving just as first orientation point.

Audio impressions through speakers after one week of “burn in”

Well that’s weird now. The lower frequencies did “improve”
very much. I really can’t say, if the cable itself did “warm up” or my brain
adapt to new listening experience. Anyway, I am now getting really tight bass
through Dynamique Audio NEO 2. So I can’t say any more, that I prefer Epiphany
Acoustics Atratus II in relation to lower frequencies.

 Conclusions

- that’s cable who is obviously made for hedonists, who really likes to enjoy
the music
- for me very obvious main characteristic was extremely
likeable smoothness which makes increased level of details very comfortable
listen to for longer run. I would say that because of this, its perfect partner
for every emphasized analytical sounding Hi-Fi gear, as it will bring
“comfortable relationship” to details.
- it’s very forgiving to lower quality recordings as it makes them somehow
sound better (most likely because of smoothness)
- if your preference is classical and acoustic music, then this is just right
cable for you. Also for rock and blues (as its “string based” as well).
- if you are looking for more detailed presentation of music
in sense, that it can be enjoyable to listen for longer run, then that’s again
the right cable for you
- as well, if you personal preference is to have more refinement and smoothness
in everything, you would like it very much
- as well everything is very stylish from black box to cable
itself
- only if you are “locked” to just electronic based music or
if you prefer emphasis on more energetic (sharper) reproduction of music (with
less smoothness) in lower frequencies, then there are more appropriate cables.
I can just give the example of Epiphany Acoustics Atratus II, as I don’t have
more experiences from cables in price range between £50 and £60. But in setups
for headphones (connecting DAC and headphone amplifier) anything what is
“sharper” it doesn’t feel good for longer listening periods. So its better to
get something smother for not torturing your ears.
- if you take a time for so called “burn in” process, after one week of about 6
hours of usage per day, the bass reproduction will change. Suddenly you will
get really enough bass for to enjoy all “kicking’s” from music genres like
Drum’n’bass, Trip-hop, Hip-hop, Nu-jazz (electronic jazz) or electronic music
in general.

 Anyway, if that’s your first upgrade from 50% cheaper cable,
you definitely won’t be disappointed.

Some logical presumptions

By us customers, as well many reviewers, the cables are usually tested on
limited amount of setups, very rarely on more than 10 different ones. So I dare
to think outside of my limited amount of experience. As far I understand how is
the cable made, it should balance the signal, as well bring it more undisturbed
(as there is not too much shielding (just enough) in order not to omit the
signal). Purely physically speaking, it should then balance the sound, as well
insure greater details of music.

What does this mean from empirical experience through hi-fi gear?

For example, if the amplifier have to little damping (what
means less tight bass), it will balance the whole sound image and you might get
impression of a little bit too soft bass, because its balancing this what is
available and not making something what is not there.

But if the amplifier have enough damping or higher damping properties (what
means more tight bass), then you will get perfect sound image right away,
because by hearing experience it will soften away too much strong bass and
present it in more balanced way with higher frequencies.

The same effect would be with added subwoofer. It will include it in whole
sound image in more balanced way, so that the bass effect would not prevail.

I made this presumption on how is the Dynamique Audio NEO dealing with higher
frequencies, where he is “putting away” the sharpness in higher tones. And
because the cable doesn’t include the artificial intelligence able to choose
which frequencies to amplify, he is doing the same with all frequencies – just
the final subjective impression in experience is different.

Looked from this perspective, it can be said, that Dynamique Audio NEO is more
perfect (in sense of balancing the sound image) as the Epiphany Acoustics
Atratus II, because the Atratus II is made to accentuate “the sharpness” (in
sense of presenting the details with not enough balance) of whole sound image,
what goes very well together with lower frequencies, but not so much with
higher frequencies. Speaking in more physical terms, the Epiphany Acoustics
Atratus II is more inclined to expose the details, rather than balance them,
because there might be just a little bit too much shielding, which is ensuring
fast transfer of details, but in the same time loosing the relation between
them.

What does this mean from empirical experience through different quality of recordings?

 For example by lower quality recordings (less than 320kbs),
if you have the gear able to expose a lot of details, without enough balance
amongst them, you can get a bit annoying subjective impression, because you
will hear all limitations in all their sharply exposed reality.

But if there is enough balance amongst all that details, you will still hear
the limitations, but in balanced way. In subjective impression this would mean
more enjoyable listening experience.

 I think that is good to understand the logic of cables, as
well the logic of hi-fi equipment, as for example amplifiers and speakers in
order to be able to understand your own subjective listening experience. So if
something “isn’t there” looked from listening point of view that you know what
should be changed, if you want to “have it there”.

 
I was using two different setups for testing


In my “daily desktop configuration” I connect Dynamique Audio NEO 2 to:


- Epiphany Acoustics E-DAC (which is connected to computer
with AudioQuest Tower, 3.5mm to 2.0 USB cable)

- Denon PMA-720AE (which is connected to DALI Zensor 1 speakers with AudioQuest
FLX-SLiP 14/4 speaker cables)

 In “desktop configuration” I did compare it with Epiphany
Acoustics Atratus II RCA interconnects cable, as well QED Performance J2P
(Graphite) 3.5mm mini-jack to 2 RCA cable.

In my “night configuration” I connect Dynamique Audio NEO 2 to:


- Epiphany Acoustics E-DAC (which is connected to computer
with AudioQuest Tower, 3.5mm to 2.0 USB cable)

- Beresford Capella TC-7110 headphone amplifier

- Philips Fidelio X1 (30 ohms) and AKG K 240 MKII (55 ohms) headphones

My “night configuration” is the setup for which I’m intending to use the Dynamique
Audio NEO 2.

As software audio player I always use JRiver Media Center in WASAPI mode.

 Everything set on 24 bit and 96 kHz.

Regards,
Alex.