This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below |
 |
 |
|
| The PC and DAC combination on $1.50 cords already offer a -132dBFS S/N ratio at full scale for the audible bandwidth. Bruno Putzeys’ Ncore 1200 based monos are equally rated. Our expectations for audible improvements weren’t high. Would lowering the noise floor still more reveal even tinier details buried in ‘thermal’ noise? Not likely. What we did not expect was the punch these cords introduced in the lower midrange. The sound became more involving. As an example take Suzanne Vega on her latest album Tales from the Realm of the Queen of Pentacles. Not only did time literally mature Suzanne’s voice after the previous album some 7 years ago, the DFPC Reference enabled her voice to reveal a body attached to it. |
|
|
|
 |
When the LessLoss cable was swapped for the generic, the feeling of warmth—not the audiophile coloration—was less, the generosity in sound diminished. Was that due to the tarot reference in the album’s title or a pure physical phenomenon? The latter. A similar completeness in sound and tonality was found in Birds Requiem by Dhafer Youssef. This extraordinary singer has the ability to send shivers down your spine with his piercing voice. With the DFPC Reference in place, the vocal acrobatics were thankfully still there but no trace of shivers. We would say that the DFPC Reference in this low noise/high sensitivity system contributed to control. |
|
What would be the effect of the LessLoss cable in a system where Devialet’s D-Premier was in charge of just about everything? Speakers now were the Avantgarde Duo Omega, another high resolution and not very forgiving hornspeaker. The French makers of the shiny ‘pizza box’ too are members of the Church of Cablenonsense. This is aptly demonstrated by the fact that only a welded-on IEC connector enables the lid of the D-Premier to close. All other connectors like Oyaide force you to remove the lid or have it half closed like that funky 1966 Fiat 500 Abarth.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
In this system the transformation was huge. The D-Premier—in our case already tuned down in its firmware to 32wpc—underwent a complete transformation. Its clear and detailed sound was still there but at a higher level. Again the sense of control was better. It was as if the loudspeaker drivers were on tighter leashes held by the amplifier. This was apparent with CDs played from the PS Audio PWT or with the La Rosita Beta digital output fed from iTunes.
|
 |
Our final test was with all four DFPC Reference cables in action in our full analog setup. Trafomatic's tube phono, pre and power amps got their own LessLoss cord and only the turntable’s switching power supply (we do have plans to change this eventually) used a different cable. Again a noticeable change for the better. Though this setup was not as economic as using a single DFPC on the D-Premier, it was sonically more than rewarding. Here we noticed a change in the soundstage illusion. Our brains perceived—or constructed?—a deeper wider stage. Of course this was dependent on the recording and production but many albums from the 70s as the pre-digital era benefited from the LessLoss treatment. Louis was right in his advice to start with the source. When we reverted to the previous power cords for the Kaivalya mono amps, there was not much of a setback. The change was subtle. Just as a tease we then tried some $1.50 power cords on the phono and preamp but that experiment lasted no longer than the first two or three notes.
|
|
|
In conclusion we have to say that the LessLoss DFPC Reference is completely true to its nomination. Once this cable is used in combination with a source, the complete system benefits more than a new piece of equipment will achieve. Of course the system should be well balanced to begin with. |
|
Condition of component received: Excellent.
Reusability of packing: Product can in zipper bags.
Website comments: In English and extensive on data. Sometimes the author seems to get carried away a bit too far and is not free of bigotry.
Completeness of delivery: All we needed.
Pricing: Cheaper and more effective than a new piece of electronics.
Human interactions: Kind and patient.
Remarks: We would recommend enhancing the plugs of the cable with proper shielding or Fritz de With’s idea. In a few tests we literally covered the connectors in a crude version and the results were surprising.
|
LessLoss reply:
Thank you for your review of our DFPC Reference power cable. Yeah, in a way you could indeed say we are monk like in our approach especially when comparing our seemingly unnecessary production processes (close-doored at that!) to modern-day industrial processes of mere and sometimes rash utility. There's a business adage that says "never put more effort into the outcome than is absolutely necessary". This is definitely the approach taken by the purveyors of the tried-and-tested 'caps and coils' method of filtering. These methods are based on the principle of resonance with a component called q, which stands for quality. The irony here is that the quality of the outcome for the ear is not nearly the same quality of outcome on the scope or in mathematical formulas. This discrepancy is derived from the speed of action. The LessLoss skin-filtering method does not rely on transient oscillation whereas the caps-and-coils method relies on a building up of oscillation between capacitance and induction. Thus when you really get down to it, the caps-and-coils method cannot strictly be said to operate in real time whereas the skin-filtering method indeed does. Also, once the cap-and-coil oscillation is in effect, it will to some extent ring on its own once the original culprit is no longer present. For these reasons skin filtering is more effective.
When you saw no attenuation of noise on your Blue Horizon Noise Analyzer display, it meant that the bandwidth of noise reduced by the DFPC Reference power cable was higher in frequency than the Analyzer was capable of showing. Every piece of measuring equipment has an operational bandwidth and in the case of the Blue Horizon it is not published. The Analyzer offers only an arbitrary scale from 000 to 999 but of what is not specified. (Today the product is not on the manufacturer's website). Based on your listening tests the DFPC Reference is indeed effective. But measurement proved futile. This means that the frequency of noise is very important to perceived audio quality. It becomes clear that the analyzer used does not effectively measure the frequencies or phase parameters which are most influential to audio performance from the vantage point of your human perception. In very un-monk-like fashion we decided to test our faith the scientific way. We commissioned high-frequency lab measurements on a 20cm test wire treated with an early iteration of our skin filtering and here was the result:
|
|
This does not rule out that yet higher frequencies than these are even more detrimental to the resultant perceived sound quality. But with bandwidth from 100MHz-1GHz, we reached the limit of the testing gear and available procedures in the lab. The difficulty at these higher frequencies is that there are no impedance-matching capabilities and thus, quantifying this data becomes per force an impure science. When the presence of a finger, a table top or a coffee mug introduces wild fluctuations in equipment read-out, you know you've got the test set up improperly. This proof-of-concept test to support our skin-filtering claims of effectiveness is shown quite clearly. One sees no typical bell curves, steep valleys or resonance troughs, just a steady slope depicting an ever greater effectiveness of attenuating higher and higher frequencies. This cannot be said of caps-and-coils filters because after their effective resonance peak they inevitably return to non-effective territory in the higher frequencies.
I'd also like to touch upon the touchy nerve we inadvertently touched when we wrote: "A domestic side effect hidden in all this is that when you feel the urge to turn up the volume, she no longer feels compelled to conduct contrived business in town." This was sent out in a newsletter and was on our website for a day or two. I agree it was probably not the most politically correct formulation of the bliss that our team felt should be expressed. LessLoss apologizes for causing any ruffled feathers. What, seriously, is to be said of the large proportion of fan mail we do indeed receive, which is loaded with the positive sentiment that the woman living with the 'audiophile male' is for the first time enjoying loudness levels previously associated only with domestic conflict (usually subdued or unexpressed)? By this I simply want to underscore that women's feelings count immensely when it comes to sources of happiness for your typical audiophile male (and these are of course a cold 99.whatever% statistic). I want to emphasize that there is something to be said of mutual domestic celebration of a hobby which penetrates invasively into more than one set of ears in the household. That is all it was supposed to mean and nothing more and nothing less. There is a huge difference between mere tolerance and a sharing of the passion, and when we receive letters from couples who share that they have made that quantum leap due in large part by the use of our products, it represents nothing less to us than a small spiritual trophy.
Peace,
Brother Louis Motek
Order of LessLoss
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
