Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
76.25.60.134
In Reply to: RE: Speakers cables... posted by bluesman1960 on February 27, 2011 at 16:09:39
"I read all of the fabulous claims of cables, interconnects etc. How the golden eared reviewers hear all of these subtle differences is beyond me."
It's beyond science as well ;)
Save your money, all you need to know is here.
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
The rest is mysticism and hokum.
Follow Ups:
I read the site link you posted. So does that mean there truly isnt any audible difference in one cable to the next? Im considering buying anti-cables to replace emotiva cables. Is it a waste of time and money? I was on the fence before and now im just confused....
I've noticed big differences in many cables. Recently spent a month comparing MIT,Nordost, Linn and Anti-Cables.
The Anti speaker cables made the most difference over the MIT's. The MIT's (which I've enjoyed for over 10 years) sound muffled, compressed and veiled compared to the Anti's (after 120 hr break-in). The Anti cables have excellent bass attack-- I particularly noticed the vibration and pluck of bass strings. Vocals were quite up-front and I could easily separate multiple vocals. Imaging was great--as it is in the MIT's. But the sparkling clarity, despite my initial doubts, I could not live without. So i sold my old MIT's for $ 850 and bout the Anti speaker and interconnects for $ 400. Woo hoo !
At the LP moving coil pre pre-amp output, I was really stymied between the Nordost Quattro Fil vs the Anti IC with bullet RCAs. The Anti was quick, the timing seemed better (?). But the highs seemed a bit edgy, which may disappear with more break-in. The bass was tight and seemed to almost go down an octave. The Nordost shined in the highs-very musical and sweet but still as detailed as the Anti cables. After a week, I decided that I liked qualities of both the Nordost and the Anti's--depending on the song. So, with two outputs from the pre pre amp, I hooked them to separate inputs on my pre, so I can easily choose between them, depending on the music.
Obviously, I believe there can be major differences in the sound between cables. However, other weaknesses in a system may be hiding what any particular cable may be capable of. You gotta test them in your own system. Don't forget to break them in initially and break them in (for a shorter time) every time you move them. (Yuh, it's a pain !)
That's what they first told Einstein. Decades later, with the invention of the atomic clock, they found that his theories about the changeability of time was correct( varies with speed, gravity etc)
Science still doesn't understand how are ears work and how the brain interprets sound. Science continually advances--today is but a snapshot in time.
"I see sound waves"
I agree. Buy some good quality cables (Blue Jeans is what I use) but don't break the bank on cables.
I have had cables in my systems by Audioquest, 2 from Cardas, Purist Audio, 2 from Analysis Plus, Anti-Cables, Audience 24, Auditoreum 23, 2 from Acoustic Zen, Kimber, Cat 5 and 6, Nordost, and a few other mid-level and 'free lunch' cables that I don't remember. I was most pleased with Purist Audio, Audience and Auditoreum 23. I am still using the Auditoreum 23, and find it allows the music to be reproduced with the most natural timbres, among all of the other 'audiophile' parameters. It was designed by a German fellow who prefers Shindo electronics and exotic, high-efficiency speakers, and yet it works beautifully between my Belles MB200s and Magnepan 1.7s. I tried anti-cables in three different systems, as they did provide transparency and dynamics; but I always found them 'unrefined'.
Edits: 03/01/11
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: