Kenscollick
Well-known member
I am using 2 runs of Kimber 3035 and am very satisfied with the sound.
I would like to audition Synergistic Research cables.
System #3
I would like to audition Synergistic Research cables.
System #3
Which brand of speaker wire do you use?
- Thread starter SugarMedia
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
So far Ive never heard a speaker cable that compares to Zero Autoformers (Impedance multiplyer speaker cable alternative). Especially when used with Martin Logan speakers, and I've previously used exotics like Kimber Select, Nordost Vallhallas with my CLS IIz's. Zero Autoformers appear to give more low level detail as well as increased loudness capabilities (with extra control). On top of that Zero's are hugely cheaper.
DTB300
Well-known member
Dan...are you talking about the Zero Autoformers by Paul Speltz over at www.zeroimpedance.com ???
Dan
Dan
Last edited:
Sky Saw
Well-known member
Have any of you tried LFD cables (from the designer of the LFD Mistral amp)? I have not heard them, but I have heard that if you like Blue Heaven, you should hear these..., and that they are a bit cheaper.
Jazzplayer
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
Nordost
I use the Nordost Blue Heaven biwire on my aeon-i's. For some reason biwiring sounded better than singlewire on my system. I have not played around with other types on my Logans, nor have I felt the need to!
Regards
Svein
I use the Nordost Blue Heaven biwire on my aeon-i's. For some reason biwiring sounded better than singlewire on my system. I have not played around with other types on my Logans, nor have I felt the need to!
Regards
Svein
esquire415
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
You may want to go to Audioholics for some reliable data on speaker cables. Check out their speaker cable reviews here:
http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php
So far they have reviewed River cable, Axiom and AViC. They also had a speaker cable face-off (Parts I and II) where Cobalt cable emerged winner in the part 1 and River cable Starflex in part 2.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercable2p1.php
You also get a good discount if you are an Audioholics reader.
I already bought the River cable Flexygy when they first reviewed it but wish that I had known about Have Inc.'s HaveFlex, since it's basically the same cable (Starflex) but a lot cheaper, just with less *bling*.
http://store.haveinc.com/Ebus30/Parts/Part.asp?Part=20SP4S11-BB-015
http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/index.php
So far they have reviewed River cable, Axiom and AViC. They also had a speaker cable face-off (Parts I and II) where Cobalt cable emerged winner in the part 1 and River cable Starflex in part 2.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/SpeakerCableFaceoff.htm
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/speakercable2p1.php
You also get a good discount if you are an Audioholics reader.
I already bought the River cable Flexygy when they first reviewed it but wish that I had known about Have Inc.'s HaveFlex, since it's basically the same cable (Starflex) but a lot cheaper, just with less *bling*.
http://store.haveinc.com/Ebus30/Parts/Part.asp?Part=20SP4S11-BB-015
A
ARCVT100
Guest
I am very happy and content with my Transparent Plus cables. The sound just sounds right to my ears IMOH.
marck
Well-known member
Another vote for Transparent - I use Ultra XL for fronts and am in the process of changing my center (currently Plus) to use either Super or Ultra MM.
DavidG
Well-known member
esquire415 said:
Problem is that I can't take audioholics as unbiased in the discussions of cables. You only have to read their articles to see that they are very strong believers in 'cable makes no difference at all'. They even go so far as to criticise subjective (ie listening) tests as being un-scientific and having no basis in fact. If you read one of their pages (try searching their site for Snake Oil), then the list of things they tell you to avoid effectively includes all the main cable brands (Nordost, Transparent, VdH etc).
So, I'm sorry to say but I no longer even look at audioholics, 'cause what they put on their site just doesn't agree with what my ears tell me when I listen.
My advice to just about everyone on cables is simple. Arrange an audition in your own system and buy the cable you like most. If you can't hear the difference then don't spend the money. However, if you hear something that improves the sound then go for it.
Cheers,
David
R
Rouvin
Guest
Snake oil vs. 3-in-one oil
There were a few things I liked about the "cable face-off" link from Audioholics. One is that they were concerned about construction quality, something not emphasized sufficiently or often enough by many reviewers. The other is that they were quite concerned about how easily they could be connected, something rarely seen in reviews and a factor of great importance in my experience. I am definitely not in the camp that will endure any problem to attain "perfection," frequent adjustments and tuning, for instance, but having a turntable, tube electronics and ML's, I certainly will endure some trouble.
That being said, I would characterize the articles an "engineering off" rather than a "face-off, " which I normally understand as a evaluative listening test kind of thing. So what's wrong with this? From my perspective, potentially, lots. One is that they seem to feel that everything that can be heard can be measured, or that the only things that matter are those which can be measured. Anything that can't be measured, for which a measurement doesn't exist, or for which the relationship between a measurement and a specific sonic quality is not known, doesn't exist. Any claim of sonic superiority based on some strange engineering principle or unknown factors is snake oil, the engineer's answer to these things. Sadly, what they're offering in its place is 3-in-one oil, and this is not the perfect lubricant for all situations.
If the engineering perspective were correct, the things that measured best would always be the best. The things that refute this engineering perspective are too many to mention, but tube electronics, at least for those who prefer tubes, are preferable to many over transistors which measure far superior in every way, and there are many speakers which will measure better than ML's.
All equipment is, to one degree or another, a tone control. The notion of a straight wire with gain (or without a sonic signature in the case of cables)is nowhere to be found in sound reproduction. Some, like electronics, can add or subtract something. Cables subtract something from the signal, but the areas that they do this can make other areas sound like something is added from the relative contrasts that can be detected by ear by some.
The Audioholics cable articles takes the position that only engineering and parameters that can be measured matter. This perspective has surfaced in audio periodically, and is responsible, in part, for the subjective high end journals that started with Stereophile (I think the first one) and proliferated from there. The fact that there is a large audience for the high end magazines hardly proves them correct, though.
Even "blind testing" in its many variants does not necessarily prove one perspective correct, especially with the serial types of testing (4 types of cable in succession, or multiple amplifiers, etc.) because of the vagaries of audio memory and fatigue. Such tests, despite the claims of their proponents, have no more validity than others. They are quite different than those in medicine that involve double blind testing of medications in which neither the physicians nor patients know whether they are getting the active med or the placebo until after the study is completed and the analysis of group statistics are done. I can also add tests of statistical significance sometimes used in the "blind" testing articles in audio are also rarely meaningful because of sample size, and there are many problems beyond this.
The Audioholics articles also distort greatly the "placebo effect," reducing it to nothing more than suggestibility, bias, and expectancy. While these often enter into certain aspects of the "placebo effect," it is far more complicated than these factors would suggest. They use this reductionist (and largely incorrect) version of the "placebo effect" to bolster the claim that what cannot be measured can only be snake oil.
I like to know about engineering issues. Though I may not understand them all, how readily the cables might be hooked up, and some perspective on whether the theory proposed for the sonic characteristics of the cable makes any sense. I'd also like to know how the reviewer, or you, thought they sounded in the system used. Still, in the final analysis, this is all data that goes into my decision to purchase or not once, and only if, I have heard them in my system.
For those still longing for an objective, measurable "truth," I'd suggest a bracing dose of Kant, Kierkegaard, string theory and any modern physics.
Rouvin
There were a few things I liked about the "cable face-off" link from Audioholics. One is that they were concerned about construction quality, something not emphasized sufficiently or often enough by many reviewers. The other is that they were quite concerned about how easily they could be connected, something rarely seen in reviews and a factor of great importance in my experience. I am definitely not in the camp that will endure any problem to attain "perfection," frequent adjustments and tuning, for instance, but having a turntable, tube electronics and ML's, I certainly will endure some trouble.
That being said, I would characterize the articles an "engineering off" rather than a "face-off, " which I normally understand as a evaluative listening test kind of thing. So what's wrong with this? From my perspective, potentially, lots. One is that they seem to feel that everything that can be heard can be measured, or that the only things that matter are those which can be measured. Anything that can't be measured, for which a measurement doesn't exist, or for which the relationship between a measurement and a specific sonic quality is not known, doesn't exist. Any claim of sonic superiority based on some strange engineering principle or unknown factors is snake oil, the engineer's answer to these things. Sadly, what they're offering in its place is 3-in-one oil, and this is not the perfect lubricant for all situations.
If the engineering perspective were correct, the things that measured best would always be the best. The things that refute this engineering perspective are too many to mention, but tube electronics, at least for those who prefer tubes, are preferable to many over transistors which measure far superior in every way, and there are many speakers which will measure better than ML's.
All equipment is, to one degree or another, a tone control. The notion of a straight wire with gain (or without a sonic signature in the case of cables)is nowhere to be found in sound reproduction. Some, like electronics, can add or subtract something. Cables subtract something from the signal, but the areas that they do this can make other areas sound like something is added from the relative contrasts that can be detected by ear by some.
The Audioholics cable articles takes the position that only engineering and parameters that can be measured matter. This perspective has surfaced in audio periodically, and is responsible, in part, for the subjective high end journals that started with Stereophile (I think the first one) and proliferated from there. The fact that there is a large audience for the high end magazines hardly proves them correct, though.
Even "blind testing" in its many variants does not necessarily prove one perspective correct, especially with the serial types of testing (4 types of cable in succession, or multiple amplifiers, etc.) because of the vagaries of audio memory and fatigue. Such tests, despite the claims of their proponents, have no more validity than others. They are quite different than those in medicine that involve double blind testing of medications in which neither the physicians nor patients know whether they are getting the active med or the placebo until after the study is completed and the analysis of group statistics are done. I can also add tests of statistical significance sometimes used in the "blind" testing articles in audio are also rarely meaningful because of sample size, and there are many problems beyond this.
The Audioholics articles also distort greatly the "placebo effect," reducing it to nothing more than suggestibility, bias, and expectancy. While these often enter into certain aspects of the "placebo effect," it is far more complicated than these factors would suggest. They use this reductionist (and largely incorrect) version of the "placebo effect" to bolster the claim that what cannot be measured can only be snake oil.
I like to know about engineering issues. Though I may not understand them all, how readily the cables might be hooked up, and some perspective on whether the theory proposed for the sonic characteristics of the cable makes any sense. I'd also like to know how the reviewer, or you, thought they sounded in the system used. Still, in the final analysis, this is all data that goes into my decision to purchase or not once, and only if, I have heard them in my system.
For those still longing for an objective, measurable "truth," I'd suggest a bracing dose of Kant, Kierkegaard, string theory and any modern physics.
Rouvin
garmtz
Well-known member
Never mind theory, listen to Nordost Blue Heaven! The best I have heard with ML for a 'normal' price.
V
velcro22
Guest
Speaker wires and interconnects
I have been extremely statisfied with my Audioquest Volcano for my speakers and Kimber KS-1130 for my front interconnect. Very transparent.
I have been extremely statisfied with my Audioquest Volcano for my speakers and Kimber KS-1130 for my front interconnect. Very transparent.
socialxray
Well-known member
I am a copper strand kind of guy myself. I have nothing against high end cables. They are very attractive and I am sure that they are good tone controls but when I compare what they are made out of, I find the super high prices of some brands insulting. But hey, if the market will support it why not sell it.
Last edited:
garmtz
Well-known member
socialxray said:
You are mistaken. Nordost cables are the best measuring cables around, definitely less a filter than most thick stranded copper cables, which is easily heard as a more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound.
I
Ironic77
Guest
Less a filter?
Not to pick on garmtz, but "less a filter"? Come on.
Show me some scientific data. Show me the difference that justifies paying hundreds of dollars more than something is worth? I think if you had done blind tests, showed me a frequency response curve, and maybe do some tests to even see if you can here a 0.01db difference at 45kHz, then you might have a leg to stand on -- and kudos, because your hearing is better than a dog's.
Sure, there's asthetics and build quality -- we're all ML people after all. Sure there's the basic principles of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Sure there's the fact that lots of 'audiophiles' have too much money and want to feel justified in their purchase.
But I personally don't subscribe to going out and paying that until you can show me something other than the use of your subjective terms. I'm really quite fed up with the speaker/audio industry because with few exceptions, they don't show scientific/engineering data and instead choose to use words like "these speakers sound better than speakers costing twice as much" or "these cables gave a warm, rich sound". I'm sure it works for many people, but I will pay more money when I see data showing why a product is superior. Show me why the electrons move better through your wire than the competitor's.
I call B.S., and if you want my money, you're going to have to show me data. I'm waiting. I'm looking at all the manufacturers' websites. Really. In the meantime, regular old asthetically pleasing 12-gauge with as short of runs and best connections possible will suffice for me.
Not to pick on garmtz, but "less a filter"? Come on.
Show me some scientific data. Show me the difference that justifies paying hundreds of dollars more than something is worth? I think if you had done blind tests, showed me a frequency response curve, and maybe do some tests to even see if you can here a 0.01db difference at 45kHz, then you might have a leg to stand on -- and kudos, because your hearing is better than a dog's.
Sure, there's asthetics and build quality -- we're all ML people after all. Sure there's the basic principles of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Sure there's the fact that lots of 'audiophiles' have too much money and want to feel justified in their purchase.
But I personally don't subscribe to going out and paying that until you can show me something other than the use of your subjective terms. I'm really quite fed up with the speaker/audio industry because with few exceptions, they don't show scientific/engineering data and instead choose to use words like "these speakers sound better than speakers costing twice as much" or "these cables gave a warm, rich sound". I'm sure it works for many people, but I will pay more money when I see data showing why a product is superior. Show me why the electrons move better through your wire than the competitor's.
I call B.S., and if you want my money, you're going to have to show me data. I'm waiting. I'm looking at all the manufacturers' websites. Really. In the meantime, regular old asthetically pleasing 12-gauge with as short of runs and best connections possible will suffice for me.
DTB300
Well-known member
Ironic77 said:
Again, this is not an attack on garmtz....just my opinion on the topic and statements made by Ironic77 and others in this post....
Data, specs, and price does not equate to good sound. No matter where you have read and what people have tested, good specs on a cable does not always equate to better sound in your particular system. LRC on a cable is a starting point but not the end to all ends....
The ONLY THING that justifies paying hundreds of dollars on something, all comes down to what you hear and what you like for what you are able, or want to spend. If someone wants to pay $1000 for a PC and thinks it makes a difference worth the $$$$, who are we to judge them for their purchase? It is their money not ours.
What needs to be said by these folks, is to try it out yourself and see what you think as it worked the best for them. But I agree, to make a blanket statement that manufacturere "A" has the best product for ML speakers for all to use, is incorrect.
The PERFECT SPEAKER CABLE for use with your ML Speaker is the one that sounds the best for YOU and for YOUR budget...Simple.....and as the mighty Roberto states: "Trust your own ears...." and my statement added on: "...not your wallet..."
Purchasing things in our society is like this... if people will pay it, they will make it... let it be cars, appliances, funiture, clothes, and on and on and on...
Dan
DavidG
Well-known member
Scientific??
Hi there,
In many of these cases, it's very difficult to show scientifically why two cables will sound different. Nordost quote capacitance and inductance per metre, along with impendance for a 1000ft length. These figures do change from cable to cable. It's difficult to measure the impact that this makes on sound. It becomes more difficult to assess when you factor in the impedance of the speakers and the output impedance of the amplifier plus the length of cable. All of these elements interact to the point where almost every system is unique and the effects of different cables will therefore vary from system to system.
For me, the biggest enhancement from a cable was the introduction of Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cabling. Stepping up to Red Dawn made no audible difference in my system. I listened to a different system at a friends house (Krell amps and Focal JM Lab speakers) and the Red Dawn was amazing in comparison with Blue Heaven.
No, I can't explain why - I can only tell you what I heard.
My advice on cables remains - if you hear a difference, and you like what you hear then spend some money. If you can't hear any improvement then don't spend anything. Only your ears can decide, and only when you use the cable in your own system.
Cheers,
David
Hi there,
In many of these cases, it's very difficult to show scientifically why two cables will sound different. Nordost quote capacitance and inductance per metre, along with impendance for a 1000ft length. These figures do change from cable to cable. It's difficult to measure the impact that this makes on sound. It becomes more difficult to assess when you factor in the impedance of the speakers and the output impedance of the amplifier plus the length of cable. All of these elements interact to the point where almost every system is unique and the effects of different cables will therefore vary from system to system.
For me, the biggest enhancement from a cable was the introduction of Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cabling. Stepping up to Red Dawn made no audible difference in my system. I listened to a different system at a friends house (Krell amps and Focal JM Lab speakers) and the Red Dawn was amazing in comparison with Blue Heaven.
No, I can't explain why - I can only tell you what I heard.
My advice on cables remains - if you hear a difference, and you like what you hear then spend some money. If you can't hear any improvement then don't spend anything. Only your ears can decide, and only when you use the cable in your own system.
Cheers,
David
I
Ironic77
Guest
Science vs snake oil
Yes. I agree with both Dan & Dave. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm just saying that it might not make sense to spend 30% of your budget on cables if you can keep your runs short. I like the fact that Nordost has published *some* of the data on their cables. I wish other brands would do the same. But they don't show comparisons to $2.00/ft 12-gauge cable. They don't show what the response would look like for a typical 4-ohm or typical 8-ohm speaker with a typical 10-ft run (because the number of people who can do the low-pass / high-pass calculations in their heads at the store is pretty small). For that matter, how many speaker manufacturers make that information readily available? If they did, it would be easier for those of us with electrical engineering degrees that want things in quantitative terms to make informed decisions. How many people have the equipment or time to test 5 different kinds? Of course, how many of us even know the resonant room frequencies by heart? Nonetheless, is that too much to ask from someone who does this for their living?
Yes. I agree with both Dan & Dave. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm just saying that it might not make sense to spend 30% of your budget on cables if you can keep your runs short. I like the fact that Nordost has published *some* of the data on their cables. I wish other brands would do the same. But they don't show comparisons to $2.00/ft 12-gauge cable. They don't show what the response would look like for a typical 4-ohm or typical 8-ohm speaker with a typical 10-ft run (because the number of people who can do the low-pass / high-pass calculations in their heads at the store is pretty small). For that matter, how many speaker manufacturers make that information readily available? If they did, it would be easier for those of us with electrical engineering degrees that want things in quantitative terms to make informed decisions. How many people have the equipment or time to test 5 different kinds? Of course, how many of us even know the resonant room frequencies by heart? Nonetheless, is that too much to ask from someone who does this for their living?
