They will connect a Roksan Caspian Integrated Amp to Epos M-12 speakers. My current wire is Kimber 4 PR singles. The sound is good yet seems a tad lean and small(?). Will bi-wire necessarily fill out the sound? Deeper? Fuller? I'm looking at keeping the cost under $200 for 6-8ft. Thanks mucho, Jerry
Alright! Tvad! Thanks for the heads up. I have noticed the Canare bi-wires on ebay quite often. I should have put them on my list of choices 'cause I have been interested in hearing from someone who knows about them. I'm glad for the reference and I will check 'em out. Thank you much. Jer
Tvad, thanks for the Markertek info. Got a catalog from them within days. My question, have you (or anyone else out there who has listened and lived with Canare speaker wire) noticed a drop off at the low frequencies? I've read many good things 'bout these cables with one exception-that being the low end is a little light. This concerns me because I am looking at bi-wiring to hopefully bring out more bass in my system. Thanks, Jerry
Tvad, Thanks. I'm gonna give the Canares a try. I will love it if they are the ticket. I'm not really a tweeker and I have no interest in throwing a bunch of coin at an endless pursuit. I am in this for some good sounding music. I dig my stereo and I really just want to get a bit more punch outta the low-end. Thanks again. I'll let you know how it turns out. Jerry
Tonrod55, When you say separate runs (I'm assuming this is in a bi-wire configuration), do you mean 4 separate cables running from amp to speakers? Is this what's called "shotgun" bi-wiring? If I am understanding this correctly, I assume you bind the amp-end cables together so as to connect them to the binding post. Is this correct? And does this offer you any noticeable improvements in low-end? The low-end is what I'm after. Thanks, Jerry
Ossorosso: Yes. I made up 2 runs of 4S11 per channel. The amp end has one run with spades and the second run with bananas. I use the 5-way binding posts to secure both spades and bananas. You could bind them together as you mention. Or use spades on both. I'm pretty sure this is what shotgun means. I'm satisfied with the bass. As has been said previously, it's too cheap not to try.
I've had the Q10s biwired from a Rogue 88 amp to Meadowlark Shearwater Hot Rod speakers for about a year and find them to be a well balanced cable(not excessively bright with good bass). I upgraded on advice from a person in the business who knows the Shearwater speakers very well. Only thing I can compared them to are DH Labs T14 which were definitely brighter and leaner on the bass. I've also tried biwiring with Monster cable but the Q10s deliver a fuller sound with better sound stage. I bought my 11 foot pair on this site for about $180.
Sorry, one other thing to add about the 4S11 by Canare: they seem to deliver excellent bass, which was improved (in my system, mind you) even more with Dakiom feedback stabilizers. (Those are an entire topic unto themselves; people have varying experiences and Tvad posted some nicely thought out response threads to my review of those...) However, I also own a Rel Storm sub-bass unit which is just phenomenal. It is the single best component in my system, I think. So how well these cables would do for the bass in other systems is unknown to me.
Tvad, that's interesting. The local dealer is touting the Audioquest CV-6. Those would be about 400 bucks. How much are the MAS Signature Hybrid speaker cables? Do you know anything about the CV-6?
Also, (if you have the time and patience) can you educate me a little on biwiring? Specifically, am I really gaining anything by having only two connections to the wire at the amp and then branching into four to "biwire" at the speaker end? The amp is the ST 140 and has only a single + and - post for each channel. It does NOT have 4 posts per side, so I'm NOT "bi-amping".
In this setting, is this "bi-wiring" just some sham, or is there really some benefit beyond a "regular" cable run? Thanks for the help.
Tvad, It's about 10 feet or so. I have these with two leads at the amplifier end and four leads at each speaker end. I'm so ignorant about this issue that I don't even know whether such a configuration constitutes "bi-wiring" or not.
Thank you. I've read another post asserting that there's no benefit to bi-wiring as described above because the separated leads bridge back together at the speakers' binding posts if those posts are mounted on a metal plate. Supposedly, the biwiring benefit accrues only when accompanied by bi-amping and an external crossover. I obviously do not know, but have absolutely no intention whatsoever of doing any sort of rigorous empiric testing. No way. Thanks again for the information.
Tvad, I just hooked up the MAS signatures in a true bi-wire configuration and compared them to the Canares in the same configuration. In both cases, I left the Dakiom feedback stabilizers on. The Canares sounded great! The MAS Signatures sounded even better by a considerable margin, especially in the mid bass. What a blast! Going from great to even better. Thanks for the tip, Tvad!
Quadophile, I was very satisfied with the Canares. I tried the Mas Signature Hybrid cables and these are even better, by a considerable margin, imo. There is a substantial price difference; the Canares are a great bargain, and imo you can't go wrong with them. It's NOT that the Mas are overpriced at all--they are fantastic cables. Based partly on correspondence with others and partly on my own experience, I suspect that these must BOTH be real heavyweights at their respective price points, i.e, bang for the buck. With the Canares I was very happy. With the Mas Signatures I'm absolutely GIDDY! Not bad to have two winners for choices. :)
I've been tracking this discussion and hope you reveal your results with the Canare. I too am using the 4S11 in biwire configuration and think it is an extremely good value. Had previously used Kimber 8TC, Audioquest type 4+, CV6, and Crystal. The Canare is the only cable purchased new and I feel no need to replace them.
I will surely come back and let you know how it sounds in my system, however, it depends how much time it takes to break-in since I have no clue. Anyone, have any idea?
Keeping my commitment to report back on my opinion of Canare 4S11 Star Quad Speaker Cable.
I finally connected the Canare 4S11 today and so far the going is really good, sounding better than the Monster Flat cable as well as the German Powerline Studio speaker cable I was using before.
It has better bass in my opinion and it is not sounding grainy or bright in my system. I am saying this based on my impressions vis a vis the cables I was using before and not in general. I will give it a good listen in the next few days. I am very optimistic that it would stay in my system for a while.
I recently added Canare 4S11 to my system, replacing standard Monster Cable. My cable lengths are around eight feet. I am going from straight wiring with MC to bi-wiring with the 4S11. I find the mids and lows to be less congested, tighter, and cleaner. One could perceive this as a loss of bass because the bass and low mid does not resonate as much and crowd the soundscape. To me this is not a problem, but a solution. Even at low volumes, I hear my low end with precision. However, you could say that the bass is not as strong until I turn the volume up on my amp.
How much of this is going from straight wire to bi-wire and how much of it is the quality of the Canare cable I cannot say. I can say that my little bang for the buck system sounds great to me, even compared to systems that cost six times as much, and at 69 cents a foot the Canare cable is an amazing bargain.
I might try the bi-wire mod prescribed at audioasylum some time soon -- they say that bridging the negative cable posts can eliminate some of the problems caused by bi-wiring.
I guess the premise is that having a common ground reference point at the speaker instead of back to the amp increases the coherency and reduces diffusion? Anyway, it seems reasonable. Here are snippets from some experimentors:
"The traditional biwire has a bit more sparkle, and slightly meaner, leaner bass. Traditional also has better imaging, with the instruments more separated along with a better perception of depth.
The tweaked setup is a tad more dull with the instruments grouped more tightly together. The bass is not as lean and mean, but the fullness may be quite welcome in some systems. Overall, there is a better sense of coherence to the music (it's probably due to the type of recordings I tend to listen to - mostly moderate rock where all tracks are recorded individually and each track often has slightly different ambience), but it is a strage effect to try to describe. Even though I describe the tweaked setup as having more coherence, I would not call it more musical than the traditional setup. "
Here's another:
"a more relaxed sound quality, a more coherent, flowing sound to the music, a more natural soundstage. The presentation is "less hifi" (for lack of a better way to put it!), and things sound more... "natural", to me. Try it, you might like it... "
And a third:
"That is because with fully isolated bi-wiring, the ground reference point for each crossover section is all the way back at the amp terminals through the seperate speaker cables, and connecting a jumper (not necessarily the oringal brass POS jumper that came with the speakers either, a bare solid copper wires often works better.) between the two ground terminals asures that each section sees the same ground reference point, as it has been commoned at the speaker, and the impedance back to the amp halved.
See also: All about bi-wiring, the hows and whys http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring.htm AND http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring2.htm http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/biwiring3.htm and Latest Flash on bi-wiring: http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/13441.html
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
