Best speaker wire

Clipdat

mantis wrote: »

There is little to gain past the Type 4 and beyond unless you have powerful amps and longer runs with higher demanding speakers. Then you would need heavier gauge cables that are properly built and terminated.

Uhhhhhh....... what?

Clipdat

Until I tried the MIT Terminator 2 bi-wire cables on my 703s, their high end presentation was always a little too laid back and warm for me. With the MITs, the highs are now a tad more forward/brighter and damn near perfect for my tastes.

They really elevated the performance of my 703s in exactly the right way. I got lucky on the synergy in that regard.

Edit: I should mention that I'm talking about fairly small changes, but ones that are easily noticeable to me. They just gave the highs that little extra smidgen of brightness that made them move toward having a "studio monitor sound" as opposed to a "warm Polk sound".

mrloren

If you want to really see if there is a difference, only change one speaker cable. Invite some friends over and see if they can tell the difference.

erniejade

mrloren wrote: »

If you want to really see if there is a difference, only change one speaker cable. Invite some friends over and see if they can tell the difference.

I do this with my wife actually. Or if I change something, I have her listen to a song, Change and then listen again and she tells me what she thinks the difference is.

audioluvr

My 17 yr old daughter is my audio analyst

BC6

https://www.thecableco.com/cables/speaker-cables/10ft-3m-pair-matrix-12-biwire-speaker-cable.html

Is this a good deal? Or is there a better deal out there? I convinced my wife that I need speaker cables for Christmas and I want to jump on it before she changes her mind. There's a lot of great information here but I'm a bit overwhelmed.

F1nut

50% off is a good deal.

jdjohn

VR3 wrote: »

One of my favorites that I replaced MIT shotguns with was the DH Labs Q10. Fantastic wire

Currently sporting the supra Quadrax, which I am fond of. I would do Q10, but just don't want to plunk down 30 bucks a foot

The Supra Quadrax is no slouch. I got some upon Trey's recommendation after buying his extra pair of JM Lab Utopia Mezzos, and I haven't looked back. Very interesting design with two pair of twisted conductors, constructed of tin-plated copper braiding around a dielectric (i.e., there is no conductive core).

The outer insulator on the cable I received was quite thick, but light and easy to work with. Here I had stripped the insulators from the four individual conductors.

I unbraided the wires, clipped the inner dielectrics, and then twister the pairs together. Also added some clear shrink tubing to each pair.

The speaker end of the cables are riding bare-back into the binding posts, and the amp end currently has locking bananas, but hoping to achieve bare-back on the amp end at some point.

DarqueKnight

K_M wrote: »

Well I guess you have solved the multi decade debate on every audio forum.
Why do you think there is so much debate about this topic?

It is for sure not cause some people are not wanting to hear a difference or are stubborn.....and just like to argue.

If what you claim is true, there would be no debate at all, everyone would easily recognize this immediate change and it would not be the almost religious debate it has become over many years.

It is a religious debate because many people do not know how to listen to stereo, what to listen for, or even what stereophonic sound is all about. In the absence of quantification, and being able to accurately describe what they hear or don't hear, people have to rely on opinion and guessing.

I recall asking you several times to explain how you set up a stereo trial where you claimed to hear "no difference", and you refused to answer the question.

When someone tells me they heard "no difference", I always ask them what they were listening for. What were their stereophonic evaluation criteria? Even in cases were blind test participants repeatedly and accurately noted a sonic difference, they often couldn't articulate that difference in terms of stereophonic performance.

DarqueKnight

K_M wrote: »

Well I guess you have solved the multi decade debate on every audio forum.
Why do you think there is so much debate about this topic?

It is for sure not cause some people are not wanting to hear a difference or are stubborn.....and just like to argue.

If what you claim is true, there would be no debate at all, everyone would easily recognize this immediate change and it would not be the almost religious debate it has become over many years.

It is a religious debate because many people do not know how to listen to stereo, what to listen for, or even what stereophonic sound is all about. In the absence of quantification, and being able to accurately describe what they hear or don't hear, people have to rely on opinion and guessing.

I recall asking you several times to explain how you set up a stereo trial where you claimed to hear "no difference", and you refused to answer the question.

When someone tells me they heard "no difference", I always ask them what they were listening for. What were their stereophonic evaluation criteria? Even in cases were blind test participants repeatedly and accurately noted a sonic difference, they often couldn't articulate that difference in terms of stereophonic performance.

Joey_V

Every cable thread usually starts as someone asking for a recommendation then it dwindles down to cable believers arguing with cable naysayers.

All I know is I was cable agnostic, then one day I demo'd the AQ Oaks in my system and I believed.

So much so that I somehow ended up with their top AQ Wels, as many here know.

I read someone posting something about going beyond the AQ Type 4 is of minimal benefit, I will argue against this as I also have the Type 4.

I also subscribe to the idea of the cables supposedly getting out of the way. I do not like them acting as tuning agents (though I am sure that because of the sound difference they make, it can be thought of as such).

mantis

Joey_V wrote: »

Every cable thread usually starts as someone asking for a recommendation then it dwindles down to cable believers arguing with cable naysayers.

All I know is I was cable agnostic, then one day I demo'd the AQ Oaks in my system and I believed.

So much so that I somehow ended up with their top AQ Wels, as many here know.

I read someone posting something about going beyond the AQ Type 4 is of minimal benefit, I will argue against this as I also have the Type 4.

I also subscribe to the idea of the cables supposedly getting out of the way. I do not like them acting as tuning agents (though I am sure that because of the sound difference they make, it can be thought of as such).

There is no need to argue against this as your opinion is just as valid as the next person. I have been up and down audioquest speaker line and have owned and own many different levels of their cables. The Type 4 cables do everything right but are a thinner conductor then the higher end models which in turn gives you less resistance especially when running higher power amps and more demanding speakers. This is where you will hear more of a difference over the sheer quality of the cable. Silver cable content speaker cables also sound a bit better as they seem to sound clearer and more natural. But the benefits are still small in my opinion.

txcoastal1

joecoulson

My cable says “all your base belong to us”

dromunds

Resistance is futile

jdjohn

dromunds wrote: »

Resistance is futile

But impedance is everything.

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

Using cables as tuning devices will diminish stereophonic qualities or details in most cases. While it's easier to swap cables, you are admittedly altering the signal with components and detracting from the impact your actual components make in the system.

When I got the Wilson Watt Puppy I also got a pair of Transparent Reference cables with them. It was a great match but I still preferred the Equinox over the $6,000 retail cables. Why? Even though the sound was smoother with the Transparent cables, I could hear the way they shaped the signal and I didn't like it. It was unnatural and seemed to eliminate space between images even though it really didn't.

Cables should be absolutely transparent and I still firmly believe you should find cables in your price point that are as Transparent and unfiltering as you can get. If you accomplish that and still have issues with the sound, you are hearing a poorly matched system. I've found the shortcomings of components to be much easier to overcome than the shortcomings of flavored cables.

We won't agree on that Skip, but we don't have to, opinions vary in audio and we are all used to that.

If you think your cables should all be neutral, then you should dump the Wireworld line because they certainly are not neutral.

I'll agree, some cables will detract from the sound, but others will also bring it out better. Call it system matching, synergy, whatever. You as a dealer have access to many different components, the average Joe doesn't, so flipping gear isn't always financially viable as a solution.

Cables are "flavored" no doubt, everything in the chain is. Like making a recipe for sound, tailored to ones individual tastes. It's no complicated, there are no absolutes, and the many ways to skin that cat is what makes audio fun.

Merry Christmas, and here's hoping Santa brings you some new cables.

joecoulson

I’m an average Joe and I like cables.

tonyb

joecoulson wrote: »

I’m an average Joe and I like cables.

….and coffee, so that makes you A-OK in my book.

joecoulson

Problem is I have too many things I “like” and not enough brass to get it all!!
But I am super grateful for what I do have and I think that’s the key.
I’ll add to this conversation that while all you fellas may not agree (me included) I do like the fact that the core group on here is respectful and courteous. This is what makes this forum different from all other Troll heavy forums.
Keep it up Polkies.

pitdogg2

I got scopes....... they are not used for cables.....
just sayin

Joey_V

mantis wrote: »

Joey_V wrote: »

Every cable thread usually starts as someone asking for a recommendation then it dwindles down to cable believers arguing with cable naysayers.

All I know is I was cable agnostic, then one day I demo'd the AQ Oaks in my system and I believed.

So much so that I somehow ended up with their top AQ Wels, as many here know.

I read someone posting something about going beyond the AQ Type 4 is of minimal benefit, I will argue against this as I also have the Type 4.

I also subscribe to the idea of the cables supposedly getting out of the way. I do not like them acting as tuning agents (though I am sure that because of the sound difference they make, it can be thought of as such).

There is no need to argue against this as your opinion is just as valid as the next person. I have been up and down audioquest speaker line and have owned and own many different levels of their cables. The Type 4 cables do everything right but are a thinner conductor then the higher end models which in turn gives you less resistance especially when running higher power amps and more demanding speakers. This is where you will hear more of a difference over the sheer quality of the cable. Silver cable content speaker cables also sound a bit better as they seem to sound clearer and more natural. But the benefits are still small in my opinion.

Next time I have a free chance I will compare my 3 aq speaker wire and come back with my findings.

Type 4 uses thinner conductors, Lgc, and if anything is single star quad without dbs. The difference between the wel and the oak was significant. If the type 4 is any closer then it is indeed a value in the line.

We shall see

mrloren

I like good cables
I like good dark coffee
I can afford the coffee

delkal

Audiophiles think the want the "purest" sound but in most cases they are mistaken. there are certain colorations that are pleasing to the ear. Think of tube amps. They can add 100 times more distortion /coloration than solid state. But it is a more pleasing sound.

Same goes for cables. The basics are all the same. Pick your copper then pick your conductor. But they can get subtle differences in the way everything is put together. Like it or not these differences color the sound. The trick is to find the coloration that people can hear and the harmonics people like.

Look at MIT cables. They go so far as to put crossovers / tone controls in their speaker cables. They claim it is to make the response perfectly "pure" but I don't buy it. They tune the crossovers to nodes with a certain harmonic difference that are pleasing to the ear. And apparently this works. Lots of people love their sound.

mdaudioguy

Santa (USPS) delivered a package of Wireworld goodies this morning... via Arlington, TX. I feel like I've been a pretty good boy this year, so treated myself! All 2(.1)-channel signals are now flowing through Wireworld cables. Power as well. I am .

F1nut

delkal wrote: »

Look at MIT cables. They go so far as to put crossovers / tone controls in their speaker cables. They claim it is to make the response perfectly "pure" but I don't buy it. They tune the crossovers to nodes with a certain harmonic difference that are pleasing to the ear. And apparently this works. Lots of people love their sound.

They don't claim they make the response pure, they claim to correct the inherent flaws of basic cable.

"The benefit is more lifelike vocals and instruments, mid and high frequencies become less bright or tiring, voices are clear and understandable, and bass frequencies become tight and deep."

I have to agree.

joecoulson

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Santa (USPS) delivered a package of Wireworld goodies this morning... via Arlington, TX. I feel like I've been a pretty good boy this year, so treated myself! All 2(.1)-channel signals are now flowing through Wireworld cables. Power as well. I am .

Congrats!

marvda1

Not getting in on this but get your read on, Analysis Plus.

tonyb

marvda1 wrote: »

Not getting in on this but get your read on, Analysis Plus.

One of my favorite brands, but I have many favorites. AP, Acoustic zen, MIT, Wireworld, Kimber, Audioquest and many more. Like an ice cream shop with flavors and characteristics to please anyone.....with any wallet.

There is a big difference too, in the lower series of these brands to the higher series, both in price and sound. I usually find, for the budget minded folks anyway, that midway or a few notches below TOTL series when bought used can yield your best bang for the buck in cables.

Some here subscribe to.....when a cables gets the signal unaltered from point A to point B, there is nothing more it can do. If that was the case, then that logic would suggest some cable series are broken, not getting the signal A-B in it's proper form. Why else would cable brands have so many series within the brand.

Audioquest has many series, so either the lower lines are somehow not doing their job, or the higher series are a waste of money because the lower lines are sufficient in getting the signal across. That logic doesn't hold water in my book.

Many things go into cable building that will influence the sound, and each series within a brand will specify what that is. Some differences in sound are slight, some more profound.....and we have many flavors to system match, synergize, with one's particular system and ears.

Like always, this hobby of ours dictates some trial and error until you reach a point your ears are happy with, with the type of music you listen to. It's really no more complicated than that.

mantis

tonyb wrote: »

marvda1 wrote: »

Not getting in on this but get your read on, Analysis Plus.

One of my favorite brands, but I have many favorites. AP, Acoustic zen, MIT, Wireworld, Kimber, Audioquest and many more. Like an ice cream shop with flavors and characteristics to please anyone.....with any wallet.

There is a big difference too, in the lower series of these brands to the higher series, both in price and sound. I usually find, for the budget minded folks anyway, that midway or a few notches below TOTL series when bought used can yield your best bang for the buck in cables.

Some here subscribe to.....when a cables gets the signal unaltered from point A to point B, there is nothing more it can do. If that was the case, then that logic would suggest some cable series are broken, not getting the signal A-B in it's proper form. Why else would cable brands have so many series within the brand.

Audioquest has many series, so either the lower lines are somehow not doing their job, or the higher series are a waste of money because the lower lines are sufficient in getting the signal across. That logic doesn't hold water in my book.

Many things go into cable building that will influence the sound, and each series within a brand will specify what that is. Some differences in sound are slight, some more profound.....and we have many flavors to system match, synergize, with one's particular system and ears.

Like always, this hobby of ours dictates some trial and error until you reach a point your ears are happy with, with the type of music you listen to. It's really no more complicated than that.

Do No Harm
AudioQuest is driven by an equal passion for product performance and customer service. Phone calls and emails are answered by real people, and products are designed by people with a genuine love of music and film. Despite growth and success, AudioQuest remains a small company at heart that believes business is earned by staying true to its core values of performance and value.
Audio and video reproduction is fundamentally a case of damage control. The signal is at its greatest potential ... is least damaged ... at the source. Great sound and great pictures, music that consumes you, movies that transport you around the universe ... all come from honoring the original signal. It’s an unavoidable fact of life that every component and cable in a system causes distortion, changing the overall character of the signal. These aberrations add up, like layers of dirty glass between you and
an image you are trying to see. Better cables, and for that matter better components, cannot improve the signals they carry ... they can only do less harm to those signals and reduce the amount of noise and distortion introduced into a system, thus improving performance.
The goal of high quality components and cables is to be like cleaner panes of glass ... to minimize any alteration or distortion of the signal. Do No Harm!

So that's a quote from Audioquest which is what I have learned from them over the decades of working with them. BUT I also learned that once you achieve the signal from A to B there is no more you can do. Cables are not supposed to tune or make the sound better but give it a vehicle to ride on so that it can safely arrive at the next location.
And your right about your statement about lines of cables. Most of the lower end cables at some point do their jobs correctly. Which at that point continuing to climb the ladder doesn't yield and correct sonic proper benefits. you get into what you like in cables which is a EQ system.
So basically your not right or wrong man, it's just what you like. I prefer not to use cables anymore as a way of tuning a system. I prefer to use the components and speakers which also include the room as a tuning. To many factors already to add in another one.