Taralabs cables

Taralab's  Air Reference AC




The RSC Air Reference AC  uses Air-tube™ technology that reduces dielectric distortion within cable; has an extremely low noise floor with unsurpassed picture clarity.  It is shielded and has 14 gauge conductor runs; SA-OF8N® copper; 24 RSC® Gen 2 conductors separated into live and neutral paths; live and neutral paths are in individual Teflon® air-tubes™ and separately shielded; ground path is provided by exterior shield; Anti-Corrosion coated SA-OF8N® copper braided shield.
Wattgate standard IEC plug, shielded14 gauge conductor runs.SA-OF8N® copper. 24 RSC® Gen 2 conductors separated into live and neutral paths.Live and neutral paths are in individual Teflon® air-tubes and separately shielded.Ground path is provided by exterior shield.Air-tube™ technology reduces dielectric distortion within cable.Extremely low noise floor.

TARA Labs “SP” Speaker Cables: As the loudspeaker cables carry much higher signal voltage and current into a non-linear impedance (the loudspeaker) the reactive load of the loudspeaker can be difficult for some amplifiers to drive... and the all-important damping factor of the amplifier does change from amplifier to amplifier. The phenomenon is readily apparent, heard as bass that is soft and low in amplitude, sometimes together with high frequencies that are too smooth or rolled-off, in addition to a loss of musicality. However, when these amplifiers are connected with TARA Labs ‘SP’ speaker cable models, the output of some high-end loudspeakers instantly becomes audibly improved at variable frequencies. One of the great attributes of the TARA Labs ‘SP’ speaker cable models, are the 'state-of-the-art' technology and design that was created by TARA Labs. Their performance level is absolutely spectacular when matched with the majority of high-end audio components available today.
TARA Labs ‘SP’ cable models are now available in the Evolution series cables; Air Forte, Air Evolution, Omega Evolution and he Grand Master Evolution.

Making Sense of … Evolution Speaker Cables
Extreme Audio Systems and Extreme Performance Cables with Low Inductance
At TARA Labs, the major design goal for speaker cables is to reduce the inductance in the cable. However, there are some high-end amplifiers that need to 'see' some level of inductance (L) in the speaker cable. When the low damping factor of certain amplifiers is connected with (ultra-low inductance) TARA Labs speaker cables, the output of some high-end loudspeakers becomes audibly variable at different frequencies.
The phenomenon is readily apparent, heard as bass that is soft and low in amplitude, sometimes together with high frequencies that are too smooth or rolled-off. Basically, the resistance in the loudspeaker cable should be ultra-low, and the inductance (L) in the cable needs to be low but sufficient to provide a load to certain amplifiers. There is no ideal value for (L). It varies from system to system, just as impedance varies with frequency in most loudspeakers.
The loudspeaker cables carry much higher signal voltage and current into a non-linear impedance (the loudspeaker) ... so the reactive load of the loudspeaker can be difficult for some amplifiers to drive... and the all-important damping factor of the amplifier changes from amplifier to amplifier.
One of the great attributes of the OMEGA Evolution & Grandmaster Evolution Speaker Cables is their ultra-low inductance. The OMEGA Evolution & Grandmaster Evolution Speaker Cables are the 'state-of-the-art' in both technology and design from TARA Labs. Its performance level is absolutely spectacular when matched with the majority of high-end audio components available today. And as with an ever increasing introduction of new components into the marketplace, we have found over and over again that not every cable or component has the perfect symbiotic relationship with each other. In these particular instances, there are some amplifiers that need to 'see' some level of inductance (L) in the speaker cable. For certain loudspeakers and amplifiers, TARA Labs has produced another addition to the line-up with the Omega Evolution SP & Grandmaster Evolution SP speaker cables. These cables are designed to work exceptionally well with amplifiers with a low damping factor or loudspeakers with a very reactive load in the lower frequencies.
Another choice is the *OMEGA CX Evolution loudspeaker cable with its slightly higher inductance, used especially with wide-bandwidth amplifiers.
*The Omega Evolution CX model is a more affordable version of the Omega Evolution SP. Having similar characteristics as the “SP”, yet at a lower price. For the speaker cable that requires a higher inductance, or used with wide-bandwidth amplifiers, the Omega Evolution SP and the Grandmaster Evolution SP are the ultimate cable choices.

Post by Musicman,     I also think that some of the cable and amplifier prices are over the top, but saying that, I did hear both Nordost and TARA Labs at CES, and both were great! I did feel that TARA Labs was better than Nordost when it came to overall sound. Let's face it, this is a very expensive industry to be involved in. MBL, Rockport, Magico are extremely expensive gear to own. But if you have the money, and want the best, then you'll buy MBL< or Rockport, or TARA Labs. No matter what industry, the best will always cost more

Taralab's Air Phono cable's , A affordable analog phono cable that any high end enthusiast's can afford and enjoy, ,,




TARA Labs Air phono is another high-end phono cable that is available from TARA Labs, and is part of our legendary “Air” series audio cables collection. Its low price for a specialty cable make this an excellent choice for audiophiles who need a reference grade phono cable. It is suitable with all cartridge voltages. Sonically the cable is open and revealing, with excellent high frequency extension and detail. It is recommended for a wide variety of cartridges.
Conductor is: 99.999999% Oxygen-free, mono-crystal, rectangular solid core.Available termination: RCA, XLR, 5 pin DINHandcrafted in USA and lifetime guaranteedHigh-frequency extension & detailTight bass & midrangeVery revealing

Hi Denon1, when do you expect your cable's?

The Grandmaster Evolution AC




The GrandMaster Evolution AC power cables is the absolute ultimate power cable design. It employs twenty four RSC conductors for each of the live, neutral and ground “earth” conductor paths. A total of nine low frequency conductor paths is used combined with the 72 RSC solid core high frequency conductors. The 72 RSC high frequency conductors are shielded in three separate groups for live, neutral and ground. Then the shields are combined to provide a phenomenal ground path together with RF/Emi rejection.

So, where do we stand? For the nonce, let us say that computed power may be taken as the power we should have on hand if we use a transistor amplifier or a high-powered tube amplifier. In the lower-power categories, tube amplifiers in general will not produce the best sound that the average speaker can furnish. They may be adequate, and can nonetheless provide enjoyable listening, but they do leave room for improvement. Whether or not the improvement is worth an additional outlay of money to you is up to you. But it's there for the buying

Even more significant, however, is the "transistor sound" at low output levels. Even the feeblest transistor amplifiers we have heard (a 3-watter, for instance) sound like high-powered amplifiers when operating at low levels. They are transparent, crisp,and have the same kind of bass solidity that high- power advocates have always attributed to the monster amplifier's reserve of speaker-controlling watts. So the superiority of the high-powered tube amplifier is not just a matter of reserve power.
Just what it is a matter of is still open to question, but we may be in a better position to answer this when we get the opportunity of comparing high-powered transistor amplifiers with their betubed competitors. Tube amplifiers have fouled up the power question for years, because the low-powered ones so often suffered from shortcomings that had nothing to do with the simple fact that they were 10- or 12- or 15-watt amplifiers. Transistors may change the picture.

High-power advocates have always claimed that one reason a high-powered amplifier sounds better than a top-notch low-powered job, even at low levels, is because the big one's reserve power gives it better control of the speaker's voice-coil. It was reasoned that a large reserve of power, operating through a tight negative-feedback system, could bring more power to bear more rapidly for suppressing spurious vibrations of the speaker cone. This sounded plausible, until the first of the all-transistor amplifiers came along and befogged the issue.
Transistors just do not behave like tubes. Transistor amplifiers whose measured distortion is higher than that of the cheapest "hi-fi" amplifiers somehow manage to sound much better than they should, and the absence of an output transformer from most transistor amplifiers (the low-impedance transistors connect directly to the speaker) eliminates most of the annoyance value of marginal overload on peak passages. As a result, a transistor amplifier seems to produce far more clean power than a tube amplifier of the same rated output.

The light output transformer in most low-powered amplifiers is susceptible to core saturation at low frequencies, and even though this may be held low enough to meet overload limits down to, say, 20Hz, it nonetheless imposes a severe limit on the amplifier's low-frequency residual. Thus, typically, the low end will exhibit increasing distortion with decreasing frequency, even at the very lowest output power levels. At 1 watt, where the mid-band is contributing only 0.3% or so distortion, there may be 1% distortion at 30Hz.
Actually, it is a rare low-powered amplifier that will produce as little as 0.3% distortion at low levels, even through the midband. Most of them, sloppily designed as they are, have enough distortion in their earlier stages to hold their residual at about 0.75% no matter how good their output stage may be, so they can never sound as good as the more carefully designed high- powered units. The few exceptions to this rule are so costly that one might just as well buy a higher-powered unit and be done with it.
There are extenuating circumstances occasionally, though. Loudspeakers and amplifiers that ate designed specifically for one another should be used together regardless of the amplifier's power rating. Some speakers are fragile, and will burn out if hard-hit by a hefty amplifier. Fusing helps, but the series resistance in the line reduces the electrical damping applied to the speaker, inhibiting the amplifier's ability to prevent spurious cone vibrations. Consequently, if you must use such a speaker, it's advisable to bypass its fuse, and couple the speaker directly to an amplifier that won't be able to damage it.

Even the biggest, costliest amplifiers exhibit this power loss at the frequency extremes, but in these, the losses don't usually start until well beyond the audible range.
Let's assume now that we have access to an amplifier's power response curve, and can see that it will deliver its full rated power to 20Hz. Is this any guarantee that it will sound the same, at low levels, as a high-powered unit? It is not.
Power response curves show the power levels at which different frequencies will generate the same 2% distortion at which the midband power is usually rated (fig.3). What they fail to show is distortion at less-than- maximum power levels. An amplifier that yields 2% distortion at full rated output may yield 0.2% at half power, or its distortion may never drop below 1% regardless of how little power we drive from it. And since we do most of our listening at power levels far below overload, the amplifier's minimum distortion, or "residual" distortion, is of considerable interest to us. Here, again, is where the typical low-powered job falls far short of its heftier ilk.

There's a second reason why high-powered amplifiers should outperform low-powered ones, even at low output levels. It is customary to equip an amplifier with an output transformer that is no larger than it has to be in order to yield full rated power in the middle range. The British are still making low-powered amplifiers with substantial output transformers, but the prevailing attitude in the US seems to be that the low-powered amplifier is sort of a stopgap component, to tide the buyer over until he can afford to purchase something good. There is rarely any attempt to design a really good low-powered amplifier. As a result, the typical 10-watter, even though it may well meet its rated power at 1kHz, is severely limited in power capability at both ends of the spectrum. The power loss is usually most severe at the low end, where there is often a great deal of energy in the audio signal, so the unit may only be able to deliver half, or less, of its rated power before the program material overloads it 

Thus far, we have fairly well established the power that we must have in order to avoid outright overload when reproducing original orchestral level through a speaker of known efficiency. But it is not all the power we should have on hand, because there’s more to fidelity than just reproducing sound at the proper volume.
Anyone who has perused an amplifier’s power-vs-distortion curve will have noticed that distortion rises gradually with output until just below the overload point, beyond which the distortion skyrockets. This is one reason why a high-powered amplifier is likely to sound better than a low-powered one even at every low power levels. They may both be operating at well below their overload point, but the fact that the high-powered one is running at 1/10 of full power when the other is at 8/10 of full power will mean that the former is contributing less distortion at all times  and this will generally show up as cleaner, more "comfortable" sound.

The formula that we described for arriving at our minimum RMS power figure assumed that the loudspeaker radiated its sound in all directions away from the source. In truth, some speakers don't. The best loudspeakers for small-room listening are direct-radiator types, simply because they do radiate the sound over a broad area. But horns. which usually behave best in very large rooms, tend to direct most of their output forward, so a higher proportion of the radiated sound goes directly toward the listener. This would tend to reduce the power requirement even more for a horn-loaded system, but the high efficiency of the average horn puts its power requirement so low to begin with that it is pointless to quibble over an extra watt or two, even though this may represent a doubling or halving of the computed figure.
An orchestral crescendo, or a full choral passage, contains transients that are fully 10dB higher than the average volume of the sound, as measured by a sound level meter. A 10dB increase in level represents a 10-fold increase in power, so how can we possibly hope to cope with this sort of thing? Fortunately, we don't have to. Recording studios and broadcast stations use peak limiters to keep these huge transients out of the received signal, and tape recorders have their own built-in limiting action. Transients are high- frequency phenomena, and tape will saturate instantly if a strong treble impulse is fed to it. The result is a shearing-off of the peak, and if the overload doesn't last too long, this won't cause any more audible disturbance than a good peak limiter.

The power figure derived by the above calculation represents the minimum amount of RMS power needed to reproduce an orchestral crescendo at its original measured sound pressure. The figure will apply as a total power requirement for both channels of a stereo system, but it will not apply for a monophonic system, because mono sound of a certain measured pressure level does not sound as loud as the same level when the reproduction is stereophonic. This means that, in order to reproduce monophonic material at the subjective level encountered in the concert hall, we need more power than would be indicated on the basis of sound level meter computations.
How much more is a moot point, because the disparity between stereo and mono power requirements varies with the program material, the way it was microphoned, and the acoustics of the listening room. It usually works out to about a 1–2dB difference, which seems negligible until we remember that it takes double the power to raise the listening level by a mere 3dB. To cope with a 2dB increase, we must up our original power estimate by a factor of about 1.6. Hence, if our original figure came out to 4 watts, we would have to multiply this by 1.6 to get our power requirement for monophonic listening, and this would come out to 6.4 watts for the 10%-efficient speaker.

Sound pressure readings are made using a special microphone probe and a meter that resembles a tape recorder's VU meter but is calibrated in dynes/cm2 of pressure or in decibels above the threshold of human hearing. The sound meter shares the same shortcoming as a VU meter in that its indicator needle, having some inertia, does not respond fully to transients, but gives an average (or RMS) reading.
The RMS level of sound during an orchestral crescendo, as heard from a fairly close seat in the concert hall (row C, for instance), measures about 100dB on a sound level meter. The acoustical power (not electrical, please note) needed to create this sound level, at a distance of 15 feet from a loudspeaker in a 10' by 15' by 20' room, is on the order of 0.4 acoustic watts.
If we used a 100% efficient speaker (which is unlikely, because there's no such thing), we could recreate the RMS power of the original sound with 0.4 watts of electrical power. To find the amplifiet power required to get this acoustical power from a practical speaker, we simply multiply the reciprocal of the speaker's efficiency rating (in percent) by 40. Thus, for a 10% efficient speaker, we have: 40 x 1/10W, which works out to 4 watts. For a typical "low-efficiency" speaker of about 1% efficiency, we would need 40 watts of amplifier power to produce 0.4 acoustical watts.

So, for the purposes of this article, we are going to assume that you will, at least occasionally, play your system at foreground level.
What about orchestra-in-the-room level? Although a popular advertising gambit, this is an absurd notion. To be mundane about it, there simply isn't room for a symphony orchestra in the average home, so even if it were possible to re-create the original volume of the orchestra as heard from the conductor's podium—which it is, but it takes scads of power and a highly efficient speaker—the effect could not be realistic. It would also be very un-neighborly. A solo performer, or a chamber group, could be in your living room, and sounds very convincing when so reproduced. But recording engineers realized long ago that orchestra patrons listen from out in the hall rather than from the podium, so they do their microphoning to convey as well as possible the illusion of listening from a mythical "best seat in the house." Their recordings sound best when reproduced to scale; higher volume levels make them sound overblown and unnatural.
As sound waves travel away from their source, their total acoustical power remains essentially the same, but as each wave spreads out over a wider area, it thins itself out. Thus, the actual intensity of a sound some distance from its source will be considerably lower than its intensity right at the source. For this reason, we measure sound intensities in a concert hall in terms of variations in air pressure (or the sound pressure), rather than in terms of watts of acoustical power. The original power at the source can then be computed, if desired, by a simple formula based on the fact that sound pressure weakens by a square root function as its distance from the source is doubled.

All right, then, how much power should we have? Simply stated, we should have enough power to reproduce the desired sound at the desired level without exceeding a certain limit of distortion. This reads like a masterpiece of evasion, but it is a step in the right direction, for no expert will disagree with it.
But what level is the "desired" level? Background music level, foreground listening level, or the kind of ear-shattering level that a conductor might hear from his podium?
The hi-fi system owner who does not plan to use his rig for anything except background music can just forget all about power requirements. At very low listening levels, the ear's powers of discrimination are poor, so any amplifier that is sold under the guise of high fidelity will do. A cheap 5-watter will be adequate, and it isn't too important if its distortion is fairly high, because nobody really listens attentively enough to background music to notice its sound.
The only time we benefit from high fidelity is when we concentrate on the program, because that is when we start to get finicky about the sound. Our ears are most responsive to upper frequencies when the sound is loud, and it is at high levels where a hi-fi rig's distortion is prone to be most severe. If the amplifier is clipping the tops off peaks at high listening volume, the resulting raggedness of sound is much more audible than it would be were the amplifier doing the same thing at a much lower volume level. This, of course, helps to befuddle the issue, because the higher the listening volume, the lower the amplifier's distortion must be in order to sound pleasant. And we all know that the harder we push an amplifier, the more distortion it generates.

As is often the case in such a diagonal disputation, both are partly right. One source of the widespread disagreement stems from the lack of any standardized criteria for judging power requirements. Thus, one expert may be stating how much power we need to produce a certain volume of sound during crescendos, while the other may be telling us how powerful an amplifier we must have before any further increase in available power ceases to yield any perceptible improvement in sound. On the other hand, another expert—the field is thick with them—might be figuring power requirements on the basis of a high-efficiency speaker system like the Klipschorn, while yet another expert may have decided that the only speakers worth listening to are low-efficiency types like the AR-1, so he bases his estimate on its power requirements.
All are legitimate approaches, but it is obvious that no one of them can supply a universal answer. Hence the compounded confusion.
Let's get one thing straight at the outset: "Need" has no bearing on the matter. It is senseless to ask how much power we need, because the answer is "none." We don't need high fidelity, when it comes right down to that. Nobody would die, no governments would collapse, no panics would ensue if, all of a sudden, high fidelity had never been.

Considering the amount of careful research, cautious theorizing and wild speculation that have been lavished on the amplifier power question, we should expect to be considerably closer to the answer in 1962 than we were five years ago. This does not seem to be the case.
We have instruments for measuring sound pressure levels in the air, for measuring electrical power, and for analyzing distortion content to the third decimal place, and the literature is full of learned dissertations on the structure of musical sounds, their behavior in concert halls and living rooms, and the relationships between ears and the sounds around them. Yet one audio expert still maintains that 0.5 watts of amplifier power is all you ever need, while another says 50 watts is barely enough. Who is right?

TARA (The Absolute Reference Audio) Labs is a manufacturer of a high-end audio cables from Medford, Oregon. It's led by president Merrill Bergs. The trademark of Tara Labs is their use of solid wire.


The company was established in 1984, when company founder Matthew Bond, trained in physics and electronics theory, was looking for ways to improve the performance of audio components and the wire used within an audio system. As early as the mid 1970s and early 1980s, Matthew Bond had experimented with solid core conductors of different diameters. He hypothesized that an 'optimum diameter' of 18 AWG (American Wire Gage) or 1 millimeter was ideal for audio frequencies because there was minimal high frequency attenuation caused by the principles known as skin effect.[1] It is important to note that Matthew Bond's work was corroborated by research work from the NBS or National Bureau of Standards in the 1930s and confirmed later by Stereophile Magazine in July 1988 in a table presented as the DC to AC resistance ratio versus frequency, in wires of different diameters.[2]Matthew Bond is credited with the invention of solid-core wires for audio use, because his work predates Dennis Morecroft (1984) and any of the early solid-core wires developed for use in audio in England at the time.[3]
The first commercial speaker cables were designed in 1984, the Phase II speaker cable, a solid coredesign.[4] Thirty years later, the Phase II Speaker Cable is still available through retailers in the United States. In 1990, TARA Labs introduced the world’s first cable to have a floating conductor unterminated at one end that would allow for an increased high-frequency bandwidth to be coupled to the signal carrying conductors (US patent No. 5033091). Later, a control device inside a box fitted to the cable (The Temporal Continuum) allowed the user to adjust the amount of high frequency energy to be heard.
TARA Labs introduced Rectangular Solid Core cables in 1992. The cables employed solid core conductors with a rectangular cross section. Rectangular Solid Core can be made in specific proportions(width and height), and this provides for the tuning of the frequency response of a conductor as compared to a round conductor of the same size or DC resistance.[5]
The cables employed solid core conductors with a rectangular cross section.[6][7] Both the Gen2 conductor and the smaller Gen3 conductor are said to be Eight-Nines™ pure copper, which is 99.999999% pure. TARA Labs’ trademarks for this technology are 8N™ and SA-OF8N®. SA-OF8N means Super Annealed – Oxygen Free 8 Nines copper. According to Bond, the term ‘annealing’ refers to the method whereby a conductor can be made softer and more conductive.[8]
In 1999 Tara Labs introduced the "Zero" interconnect with an Vacuum Dielectric Insulation system.[9][10]
In 2014, TARA Labs introduced a new line of high-end cables called The Evolution Series, which included cables such as: The Zero Evolution, The Omega Evolution, and The Grandmaster Evolution.[11][12]

Hi denon1,  yes,  taralab's does build to order by hand, I would also mention that the likely time frame specified in your post is also to fill order's that may be ahead of your order,  Greg,  you should have seen me with my anticipation for my cable's to arrive,  we'll worth the wait,  happy listening greg. 

denon1 please keep us posted on how lean your sound becomes.

Keith, my dealer told me it will take around 7-10 b.days to build Air Evo speaker cables and jumpers and I ordered standard 8 feet length.  Does Tara Labls build on order and does not stock their cables at all? I

This is the matching power cord for the Air Evolution Interconnect and speaker cable's,       Air Reference AC




The RSC Air Reference AC  uses Air-tube™ technology that reduces dielectric distortion within cable; has an extremely low noise floor with unsurpassed picture clarity.  It is shielded and has 14 gauge conductor runs; SA-OF8N® copper; 24 RSC® Gen 2 conductors separated into live and neutral paths; live and neutral paths are in individual Teflon® air-tubes™ and separately shielded; ground path is provided by exterior shield; Anti-Corrosion coated SA-OF8N® copper braided shield.
Wattgate standard IEC plug, shielded14 gauge conductor runs.SA-OF8N® copper. 24 RSC® Gen 2 conductors separated into live and neutral paths.Live and neutral paths are in individual Teflon® air-tubes and separately shielded.Ground path is provided by exterior shield.Air-tube™ technology reduces dielectric distortion within cable.Extremely low noise floor.Unsurpassed picture clarity.

“I like the Air Evo's better in my system. I also have a pair of Air 2 speaker cables. Amazing sound from both. I've died and gone to heaven – I swear. Thanks for your time and research. I am one of your loyal customers that is truly enjoying your efforts. And I did listen to XLO, Straightwire, & JPS Labs. I bought TARA Labs. Amen.” -Kevin L.

“Air Evo transients are sharp edged and fast, as fast as any cable I've come across... The TARA Labs Air Evolution Interconnect with EVO Floating Ground Station is advertised as completely neutral and absolutely revealing with high frequency and airy detail that is not found in comparable audio cables." It is certainly neutral, revealing, and loaded with detail...The bottom line is TARA Labs new Air Evolution cables are out-sized performers and offer a big bang for the buck. Highly recommended without reservation for those shopping at this price point.” - Marshall Nack / Positive Feedback Issue #77, 2015

Rsf507, there is no other cable out there that can out perform the Air Evolution full loom of cable's at it's price point,  this I'll wager on,  lol! 

Tara = LEAN  (except maybe their 40k cables and like anyone really buys those)
Sorry denon1 you will find out soon enough

Hi Steven,  yes I have looked at the used market of my two cable's,  even on audiogon,  I have my own blue book of many products here on audiogon archives saved,  so absolutely I will get  $18,000.00 for the two cable's,  no matter how much time it takes, I'm not in any hurry,  and will shoot down all low ballers. 

Keith have you looked at all the Tara cables on Agon? You will be lucky to get maybe 12k for both cables together. Heck I have tried selling NIB at BIG discounts and still have had very few sales.

Hi greg,  I meant the taralab's Evolution sp speaker cable's,  which are a higher end Evolution omega speaker cable. 

Sksos1, HI Steven, did you use the 0.3 speaker cable’s and taralab’s power cord’s when you used more than one pair of 0.3 interconnect’s? , if you did not, you would not have noticed the bass depth and improved resolution, and a rich tone, what you posted really back’s what I posted to Greg .

Hi  greg,  very nice system,  what is your interconnect's and power cable's?,,  Greg,  what I'm saying is if and when you can get taralab's interconnect's and power cord's,  compared to a full loom,  it will not be as good,  keep in mind, you will not know unless you have a complete burned in full loom that not useing a full loom is lean in comparison,  so really,  in your case,  you won't know the difference,  you will like a lot what you just bought,  your speaker's go down to 40htz so you will be surprised what the taralab's air Evolution and m1 bi-cableing jumper cable's will do,  remember,  do 300 hrs before you have your final impressions of the sound,  Greg,  it took time for me to get the full loom of taralab's cable's because of the expense of admission,  I had the taralab's the one speaker cable's for over a year and no after market power cord,  then I got the taralab's cobalt power cord with oyaida termination's,  then the taralab's zero gold interconnect months later,  then I finally got the final piece,  the taralab's omega gold speaker cable's , omg, did I ever get huge bass depth and frequency extension when I got the full matching model loom, it was a night and day difference,  I have no regrets, I love the sound I have,  I could live out my life with this cable set up,  however,  after talking to Devon Scott- vise president of taralab's a few times on the phone,  I will be selling my beloved interconnect's and speaker cable's to up grade to the taralab's Evolution zero Interconnect's and Evolution omega speaker cable's,  my speaker cable's use to be Michael fremmer's of stereophile magazine  cable's,  my speaker cable's are 8ft and the interconnect is 1-meter balanced,  the speaker cable's were  $24,000.00 retail,  the interconnect was  $14,500.00 retail,  I'm going to put them up for sale together for  $18,000.00 which is an incredible deal if any one is interested,  then later,  I will get the taralab's matching Evolution power cord. 

I have to disagree about using a full loom of Tara cables. I'm even a Tara dealer and I don't use a full loom. I tried using all Tara interconnects and the sound was way to lean. I now just use The 0.3 ic between my pre and amps and other brands throughout and now I have that full, rich, detailed sound I'm after.

(Dealer disclaimer)

Hi greg,  you can call me Keith,  the answer to your question,  this depends on the equipment being used,  meaning,  the 0.8 has more resolution,  never mix taralab's cable's,  if you mix with other brand's with the 0.8 or any cable below the zero gold,  you will have a lean sound,  if you use matching taralab's cable's throughout,  you will have depth,  better resolution,  bass, etc. ..the 0.8 will expose more information- resolution if the equipment is up to par, no one can hear a big difference if you were using something like a Rotel component system. 

Denon1,  the air Evolution you have will sound ok out the box,  however,  at 300 hrs,  they will sound open,  extended, and the soundstage will be layered and dimensional sounding, most of the burn in is over at 300 hrs,  you will have some nuances come through over some time after 300 hrs.

Hi denon1, I sent you a response email,  get back to me when you can,  cheers. 

Hi denon1, yes,  the air Evolution is a new model cable,  this cable has huge bang for the money!, good bass, neutral midrange,  with airy highs, this cable is near equivalent to the  one speaker cable's,  lol! Same number of conductor's with the exception of the Air Evolution has 10 gauge conductor runs,  where the one has 8 gauge,  however,  the Air Evolution has the current carrying capability of a 6 gauge speaker cable, thus the exceptional bass,  if I were you,  I would try to swing getting the Omega speaker link's that are 12" long, I have these speaker jumper's now,  they are incredible sounding,  worth more in performance than the asking price,  the m1 is satisfactory,  but the Omega is omg, please pm me when you get a chance,  happy listening. 

When the Record Industry Association of America adopted its standard disc playback equalization curve in 1954, hi-fi enthusiasts heaved a sigh of relief and bade fond farewell to years of confusion, doubt and virtual pandemonium. Before the RIAA curve there were six "standard" curves in use, and since nobody seemed to know who was using what, getting flat response from a disc was often more a matter of luck than anything else. The adoption of the RIAA standard playback curve heralded an end to all this.
If record manufacturers had endeavored to install the best available playback equipment, and made their records for use on this equipment, there might be little to choose today between a stereo disc and an original tape. But when hi-fi ceased to be a pursuit of quality and became a pursuit of the Merry Megabuck, the RIAA curve became just another obstacle between the product and the consumer's wallet.
The whole trouble was that J. Q. Public's polished mahogany boombox had never heard of the RIAA curve. Cut a disc to sound natural when RIAA-equalized, and it sounded muffled and distorted to the average record buyer. So, one manufacturer tried making a few minor "corrections" in the sound of his discs, and by Golly, they did sound better on JQP's console. Another manufacturer quickly followed suit, and the race was on.
Hi-fi enthusiasts and critics with good equipment noticed the change, but most of them naively confused more highs with better highs, so the record makers figured they had carte blanche to go hog-wild. They solved JQP's distortion and turntable rumble problems by compressing dynamics until some LPs and stereo discs had less volume range on them than many 78-rpm shellacs. They minimized groove-jumping by filtering out all deep bass, and brought out the "presence" by whacking up the treble, adding a 5kHz response peak, or moving their microphones right in on top of the instruments.
By 1959, the gimmicking of discs had reached such proportions that no tone control could begin to cope with these sonic horrors, so component buyers started choosing "sweet-sounding"—ie, rolled-off—speakers and pick-ups, in an effort to tame the screaming treble. Early LP discs, that actually had been cut to the RIAA curve, now sounded dull and sodden, thus giving rise to the reassuring myth that modern recordings are better than ever before.
Today there are some encouraging signs of a return to sanity, but to pretend that the average stereo disc is made to sound best when reproduced on the best equipment is to practice self-deception. Most record manufacturers still keep a sharp eye on the limitations of the average console phonograph, boosting here, attenuating there, and generally making a mockery of their claims of "highest fidelity" and their recommendations that owners of high-fidelity systems should "equalize to the RIAA curve."
If they all did the same things to their discs, or specified on the jackets what they had done, it might be possible to design equalizers to offset the effects of this messing around. But the nature of the manipulations is always a "trade secret"—most manufacturers won't admit that they do it all—which means that the poor slob of a hi-fi listener is right back where he started, only more so, because now there are no standard curves at all. There's only the RIAA curve, which hardly anybody uses any more.
In short, the relatively few record buyers who are really interested in getting good sound are being sold down the river in order to cater to the imagined needs of the vast, tin-eared public that can't tell good sound when it hears it, and cares less. Until the record manufacturers start giving us the kind of sound they could if they cared to, no amount of expenditure on "perfect" playback equipment is going to make modern discs sound any better than mediocre. There are too few audio perfectionists to have any effect on the sales of recordings, but we can write letters to record companies and the mass-circulation hi-fi magazines, and we can tell less-knowledgeable record buyers what's going on.
Until we can pressure the record companies into thinking in terms of top audio quality again, high fidelity's weakest link will remain the first link in the chain.

Mr Greg beron that owns the prestigious United home audio store in Washington DC recently won best sound at show at the 2015 Newport show with mbl equipment and uha reel to reel tape deck playing master tapes , cabled everything with taralabs zero Evolution cable's,  Greg also won best sound at show at the 2014 Chicago axpona show useing the same cable's,  Greg is well experienced in the high end,  I enjoyed talking to him on the phone,  check out his website,  incredible amount of brands of audio,  this is truly one of the best brick and mortor store's in America. 

The Grandmaster Evolution w/HFX


 Extended Bandwidth - Interconnects
The Grandmaster Evolution Series from TARA Labs is truly beyond belief. It is quite simply the new watershed in the art and science of audio cable design. The Evolution Series is in a class of its own, beyond all other audio cable products in the history of the audio industry worldwide.
The Grandmaster Evolution Interconnect uses the same multi-lumen air-tube concept invented by TARA Labs as used in the ZERO Interconnects and the AIR Series Interconnects originally developed in 1986. However, the Evolution Interconnect is remarkably flexible.
The Evolution Interconnect uses the same displaced and Floating Shield design together with a new Dual Mono-Block HFX Ground system with greater absorption of RF/EMI and a vanishingly low background noise.
Incredibly, the new Grandmaster Evolution Interconnect boasts a remarkably low capacitance figure of just 2 pF per foot. This means that the new Evolution has a High Frequency bandwidth that is more than 300% greater than any other high-end cable in the world.
The most advanced air-tube technology and designAll new proprietary "dual mono-block" floating ground station (HFX) and floating shield systemControlled spacing of conductor to conductor geometry, produces record low interconnect capacitance of a mere 2 pf (picofarads)Additionally the conductor to shield capacitance is remarkably low so the EMI/RFI coupling from the shield to conductors is negatedThe outer shield is expanded and spaced away from the conductors to such a degree that the background noise is at an all-time lowTwo layers of anti-corrosion coated SAOF-8N copper shieldCompared to the Zero Evolution, The Grandmaster Evolution has a larger, more complex system of Teflon and Aero-PE filaments that ensure a complete air dielectric system.The most revealing and lifelike presentation possibleCompared to the Zero Evolution, The Grandmaster Evolution has a high-frequency bandwidth that is 50% greater, with a stunning low level of background noise contrasted with more image outlines and fine detailRevolutionary liquid micro-film (LMF) dielectric ensures a linear transfer of low-level ambient and spatial information

Hi Geoffkait,  I do not believe they are,  I do know that the oyaida termination's on the power cord's are,  what is interesting Geoff  is that the capacitance of the taralab's flagship analog interconnect is 2 Pico farads a foot, this cable is called the Grandmaster Evolution,  and another brand of cable's I do like is the Nordost Odin 2, it has 18 Pico farads per foot,  as a matter of fact,  the taralab's Evolution zero has 3 p/f a foot, I have listened to all three cable's,  the Odin 2 is not as good as the two top taralab's model's in my opinion,  or preference. 

One man's holographic is another man's two dimensional paper mâché.  When it comes to trying to describe the sonic virtues of just about anything in audio, including cables, words tend to fail to properly convey the full meaning of what's going on and the words themselves seem trite and overreaching. Everything is relative to what system is the test bed and who's doing the listening. Innocent question: are Tara Labs cables cryo'd?

Hi maplegrovemusic,  very funny,  that's like saying soulution equipment sound's sublime with any cable,  when in fact soulution, airtight, Focal stella utopia em, critical mass,  and taralab's Evolution zero  complete loom of cable's won the recent best of show at the Rocky Mountain audio festival,  cheers. 

with a sound that can be described as holographic. Exceptional high-frequency extension and detail, expansive soundstage with spatial cues with a bottom end that is rich and full of bloom, in addition to a substantial low noise floor. This interconnect is simply astounding for the price. And for audiophiles who remember the original Zero Gold, the flexibility of the new Zero Gold G2 will simply amaze them.
--
Sounds like my system , less the $30,000 wires