Stunned by a cable upgrade

I'm glad that it worked out for you better than expected. It is always nice when a system change is a step forward and is reasonably priced. While my results with these cables were not to my liking, this just goes to show how much system compatability and personal taste come into play. There are NO absolutes when it comes to cabling. Sometimes the results can be both quite amazing and unpredictable.

Good listening and hope they make you happy for a long time to come. Sean
>

Gunbei, here's a link as to my experience with the AP Oval 9's. If your happy with your system now, DON'T read it. Like many others, i too have tried tons of cables looking for something "better" even though i was completely happy with the results that i was already getting. Trying to "keep up with the Jones's" or "experience" everything that is out there will only muck things up and waste your time and money. Quit while your still ahead.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/10605.html

The system used in that "shoot-out" has changed quite a bit since then. The current set-up can be found here on Audiogon at the following link: WHOOPS... The "virtual systems" links are completly missing !!! Can't do that !!! Sean
>

Thanks. I tend to get wordy ( noooo ???) but try to keep it un der stand able : )

From the response that i've gotten from a few others that had similar results, AP's seem to do BAD things to speakers that are point sources. When trying to run a "simple" system with full range drivers (Lowther's, Walsh's, etc..) and NO crossover networks to come between the driver / amplifier interface is when you'll run into BIG problems with AP's. As one might expect, these types of systems can be VERY revealing due to the "less is more" type of thing. Corey Kapteyn from Audio Advisor even said to me "your speakers are EXTREMELY sensitive to what is upstream of them. ANYTHING that is not up to snuff will be revealed". As such, he told me that the Oval 9's sounded BAD out of the box but would get better with time. Given the fact that they Oval 9's that i ran were "demo's" and that i also put over 500+ hours on them rules out the "break in" theory. Evidently, the guy that had them before me didn't like them either, as he returned them also.

Everyone that i know of that has used these cables in "full range" systems have complained of the same results that i had with them. Like several of the others that had emailed me, we had all tried dozens of various speaker cables before. The Oval 9's were the ONLY cables that thinned out and hardened the systems to this extreme. Go figure.

For the record, i also tried the Oval 9's in my HT system. The speakers are large floorstanders with two woofers, a mid-woofer, soft dome mid and a soft dome tweeter. They also have VERY "parts-laden" crossover with impedance compensation networks and special attention to reflections and diffraction caused by the baffle and grilles, etc... I obtained the same results there, i.e. complete thinning of the bottom end and lower midrange along with a splashy treble.

As mentioned, these systems use completely different amps, cables, preamps, sources, etc... and DO sound different. Getting the same results from two different systems kind of confirmed it for me. When i asked my Brother if we could put them into his system to see what they did there, his response was "put them in MY system ??? Put them in the GARBAGE CAN !!!"

Believe me, i DID want to like them. I only ordered them after reading their "technical papers" and finding out that Von Schwiekert was going to use them to internally wire his new speakers. You can see by the date of my "shoot out" and considering that i had them for just slightly over a month that it was just shortly after they first came out. While it is things like this that confuse both of us, i know what i heard and experienced and have received confirmation from others with identical experiences.

Then again, i know several others that have the 9's or Oval 12's and LOVE them. They all say "they are sooooo warm sounding". I almost wonder if i didn't get a "funky" set or something ??? Maybe they don't have the greatest quality control ???

Something else that makes me wonder about them though is that, even though Michael Fremer did "rave" about them in one of his recent columns, he only gave them a paragraph or so. In comparison, the other speaker cable that he was reviewing got WAY more coverage with far more in-depth writing and details. Almost like he HAD to say something nice but didn't want to say TOO much about them.

If it seems like i've gone "back and forth" on this one a little bit, it is because i AM torn on this one. I just can't figure out how something that can be SOOOOO good did SOOOO poorly here and in a couple of different systems. Sean
>

Gunbei: The Goertz worked well for me in that system. I also have other systems that the Goertz did NOT "do its thing" in. As the "shoot-out" that i did shows, you can pretty much EXPECT different results in different systems.

Bear: I agree with you in that it is typically NOT a good thing to try and "filter" or "colour" a system back to neutrality. Then again, with SO many various equipment and cable combo's available, it is sometimes what gets the job done in a "quick & dirty" approach with more than reasonable results. Like anything else though, you can expect trade-offs with anything done in a "less than state of the art" approach.

Jim: The Goertz cables are high ( quite high ) in capacitance per foot. That is why some amps have a hard time with them and require the use of a zobel network at the speaker terminals. They are NOT high in inductance. Given that E-stats are capacitive by their very nature, i would NOT compound their reactance by adding more fuel to the fire and using a capacitive based cable. Take a look at what Nelson Pass wrote at www.PassLabs.com in the "articles" section about speaker cables. Using some E-stat's that he used to run, he found that using a small gauge high inductance type speaker cable worked best with his amp in terms of stability and sound quality. This is a direct contradiction to what Bear states above, but once again, it worked in that specific system.

Wellfed: Your comments are right on the money. As i stated, my results are VERY puzzling to me to say the least. This does not mean that EVERYONE or EVERY SYSTEM will have the same results or personal tastes that i did. I simply wanted to present a different side of the coin so that others are aware of things like this happening. I do have to admit that i was initially pretty "pissed" and kind of felt "taken" or "cheated" since i had gotten such poor results from these cables compared to what MOST others were saying.

As to the differences in bass reproduction between you and your brothers system, i think your room dimensions pretty much say it all. You have a larger room with irregular dimensions. This means you will have a harder time pressurizing that area, especially with an opening that feeds into another room. Since you have the same speakers but with different volumes of room to feed, you would need a greater amount of "piston area" to achieve the same amount of low frequency output in your room compared to what he is getting in his room.

Like the old saying goes "Big room = Big speakers /little room = little speakers". While there are various reasons why this holds true along with more than a few exceptions, i think that you would need to add a sub(s) to your system in order to achieve similar results. Besides that, there may be some SUBTLE differences (compared to the room acoustics) between your amps and what they are capable of doing. Sean
>