What cables?

[RobinKidderminster]

Going to pick up speaker cables tomorrow (Wednesday). I've cleaned all the terminals and cable ends - the amp connection has banana plugs on - and I'll have it untill the weekend. I'll have the choice of either TQ Blue or Atlas Hyper 2.

I'll report back in a few days...

I have previously had both the TQ black and the Atlas Hyper 3.5 in my system, so not the same products but both of their respective family. I liked each for different reasons with the Atlas being more refined and the TQ having a bit more zing.

Is there a cable giving both refinement AND zing?

 

[Gazzip]

Going to pick up speaker cables tomorrow (Wednesday). I've cleaned all the terminals and cable ends - the amp connection has banana plugs on - and I'll have it untill the weekend. I'll have the choice of either TQ Blue or Atlas Hyper 2.

I'll report back in a few days...

I have previously had both the TQ black and the Atlas Hyper 3.5 in my system, so not the same products but both of their respective family. I liked each for different reasons with the Atlas being more refined and the TQ having a bit more zing.

Is there a cable giving both refinement AND zing?

Well, cables of course don't "give" anything. They detract from the original signal. This "veiling" can (sometimes) produce a pleasing sound.

For me, bearing in mind the subjectivity of the adjective, zing is a lack of bass and a preponderance of mid/upper. Refinement on the other hand is a reduction in the lower and upper mid-range.

In answer to your (I suspect sarcastic) question: There is a cable out there which will suit just about any taste if you don't like the accurate signal that a correctlly resistive (length vs gauged) copper cable delivers.

 

[steve_1979]

Is there a cable giving both refinement AND zing?

Only on a hifi forum could you read something this wacky.

*wacko*

 

[Kubs]

Sorry to hijack this thread but Gazzip you have and awsome system (at least on paper anyway) ... I'd love to hear a system in that price league ...

Looking forward on hearing your thoughts on the TQ blue PP ...

 

[iceman16]

TQ black PP..

 

[Gazzip]

Sorry to hijack this thread but Gazzip you have and awsome system (at least on paper anyway) ... I'd love to hear a system in that price league ...

Looking forward on hearing your thoughts on the TQ blue PP ...

£ for £ I think you would be surprised by just how good your system is if you did!

 

[iceman16]

Sorry to hijack this thread but Gazzip you have and awsome system (at least on paper anyway) ... I'd love to hear a system in that price league ...

Looking forward on hearing your thoughts on the TQ blue PP ...

£ for £ I think you would be surprised by just how good your system is if you did!

Gazzip, have you tried MIT?

 

[Gazzip]

Sorry to hijack this thread but Gazzip you have and awsome system (at least on paper anyway) ... I'd love to hear a system in that price league ...

Looking forward on hearing your thoughts on the TQ blue PP ...

£ for £ I think you would be surprised by just how good your system is if you did!

Gazzip, have you tried MIT?

I haven't. I am more of a Van Damme blue series kind of guy these days. Are they any good?

 

[plastic penguin]

Okay, I chose the Atlas Hyper 2 for a home dem. It really was a flip of a coin between that and the TQ Blue.

Have to say I couldn't hear a significant difference between the Atlas and the SilverScreen, so I can totally understand why some are reticent or even hostile towards cables.

After some ruddy long listening sessions over the last couple of days the Atlas sounded a little more cohesive - a more together presentation. Detail is crisp but doesn't overplay the songs. By contrast, when I had the Odyssey they sounded a tad forward, but that was wired to the RS6s.

As a consequence I've decided to purchase the cables, as it gives the overall sound a little joosh up that I was looking for and mentioned in #1.

No, I wouldn't recommend cables as a upgrade over speakers, but for a relative cheap 'tonic' for the hi-fi, they're fine. Remember this is only what I heard, and as we know we all hear different things. Whether it's because I wanted to hear an improvement or placebo effect - it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[CnoEvil]

Good job...and very much in line with what I heard with the Atlas.

You're now officially nuts!

 

[plastic penguin]

You're now officially nuts!

Holy cow! I was certified years ago. *mosking*

Thanks for suggesting the Atlas. Strangely, my dealer only took on the brand a few weeks ago. *good*

 

[Freddy58]

Strangely, my dealer only took on the brand a few weeks ago. *good*

He must have heard you were coming *biggrin*

 

[chebby]

From the Atlas Hyper 2.0 web page ...

"The Hyper speaker cables are available in 1.5 sq mm, 2.0 sq mm, 3.5 sq mm and Bi-Wire options."

So which version did you buy? (I don't recall you saying.)

This (the cross sectional area of the conductor) is, possibly, the most important factor in making any real difference between cables regardless of brand.

Good quality copper and lots of it.

EDIT: Sorry - total numpty here - it's Hyper 2.0 so, of course, it's the 2.0 sq mm version! Duh.

Hmm. Maybe that's why it was so difficult to hear any improvement. Little or no difference - in the thickness of conductor - to your old cables. Did you try the 3.5 sq mm option?

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Clearly no cable can add anything. So if some cables alter the frequency response, improving bass for example, then it must be at the expense of higher frequencies - employing some form of filter. I have seen no evidence of any cable altering the frequency response in any measureable way. I use speaker position and room treatment to change frequency response in a measureable way or even a little equalization if pushed - so why would I seek to find a cable to somehow adjust this balance?

 

[Vladimir]

MIT cables have that box in the middle that changes things. It will most certanly in addition to the passive crossovers eat up watts and bend the FR in some way.

 

[chebby]

Clearly no cable can add anything.

It can subtract though. That's why I dumped some old, far too rigid, thin conductor QED stuff that my dealer chose for me years ago for some decent quality, flexible cables with thick copper conductors.

I might have found much cheaper than Van Damme, although they are pretty reasonable, but wanted the re-assurance of a studio brand rather than a generic (possibly fake), no-name cable from the dodgier reaches of e-bay.

I buy cables of different kinds for different reasons (not always sound quality) * and sometimes from so-called 'foo' brands because they do other things right (that I want) that a 'hair shirt' solution won't.

* Just need to be honest with yourself why you are making the extra spend and not justify it on sound quality grounds when you really bought it on grounds of suitability, or connectivity, or neatness, colour, flexibility or whatever.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

+1 Chebby. Clearly (Vlad) that impressive looking box is a filter designed to alter FR but as we agree it is always going to be subtractive. I would prefer my signal to be as clean as possible.

And for those wishing a full and conclusive proof ...

MIT Cables' core audio cable technology is our exclusive Poles of Articulation, named after the fact that every audio cable has a single point where it is most efficient at storing and transporting energy. At this point in the audio frequency spectrum, the cable will articulate best, and represents the cables' particular Articulation Pole.

 

[Vladimir]

If your room accents certain frequencies in a bad way, or the speakers do something very very well but stink at certain parts, audiophile philosophy of synergy says you can aid that with such 'fixed tone controls'. It takes away, but from the nasty bits you want to get rid off.

 

[Covenanter]

+1 Chebby. Clearly (Vlad) that impressive looking box is a filter designed to alter FR but as we agree it is always going to be subtractive. I would prefer my signal to be as clean as possible.

And for those wishing a full and conclusive proof ...

MIT Cables' core audio cable technology is our exclusive Poles of Articulation, named after the fact that every audio cable has a single point where it is most efficient at storing and transporting energy. At this point in the audio frequency spectrum, the cable will articulate best, and represents the cables' particular Articulation Pole.

Love it! Articulation Pole sounds like a fancy name for the thing you get in "Gentlemen's Clubs" that scantily clad ladies swing on. (Or so I am told!)

Chris

 

[drummerman]

From the Atlas Hyper 2.0 web page ...

"The Hyper speaker cables are available in 1.5 sq mm, 2.0 sq mm, 3.5 sq mm and Bi-Wire options."

So which version did you buy? (I don't recall you saying.)

This (the cross sectional area of the conductor) is, possibly, the most important factor in making any real difference between cables regardless of brand.

Good quality copper and lots of it.

EDIT: Sorry - total numpty here - it's Hyper 2.0 so, of course, it's the 2.0 sq mm version! Duh.

Hmm. Maybe that's why it was so difficult to hear any improvement. Little or no difference - in the thickness of conductor - to your old cables. Did you try the 3.5 sq mm option?

Mmmhh, there are other factors, as important and perhaps more so.

It has been argued that for the average home speaker/amplifier interface anything above 1.5mm sq.mm is overkill and of little practical use. Dielectric (insulation) is also important and the differences in materials are measurable. PVC being one of the least suited materials with air (no insulation) being the ideal but hardly practical. Insulation being sometimes blamed for the 'smearing' effect.

Then there is the arrangement of conductors, also measurable. Spaced, parallel, litz etc etc.

Then there is the make up of the conductor ... stranded, solid core, stranded and solid combined, copper, silver plated copper, spacing of the conductors themselves ie. bundles, flat and solid, wound around an air tube or air tubes etc.

The naysayers will as always argue that none of the above is within the realms of the audible in normal home hifi length. The ones that actually have used different cables as opposed to use google searches as scientific evidence will probably be able to tell the accumulated effects such differences of construction can have.

Best to find out for yourself rather than take my or anybody elses word for it.

Why not make your own cable and combine some of the (reported) best practices?

Should be fun and much cheaper.

To put it all in context though, any changes will be very subtle unless you use the thinnest bellwire you can find which will have the archetypal valve amplifier affect at the frequency extremes will most speakers as TrevC recently pointed out (one of the few things TrevC often points out that I do agree with).

Still, if you have a well sorted system and possess acute hearing it is my humble opinion that playing with cables (both speaker and interconnect) can indeed provide very subtle tone controls except that any control will sway the minus (-) way with the exception of the lack of electrical control allowed by the amplifier on the driver due TrevC's example.

 

[steve_1979]

EDIT - I deleted this message because it was silly and childish. Sorry PP.