XLR interconnects?

Lacee - I'm 56 but most of my experience relates to electronics. Audiogon is an opportunity for me to learn more.

"Because I direct solder most of the time." I agree to get rid of connectors when possible but soldering introduces another metal - AQ micro-welds their cables.

TV in Europe before HDTV was better because Europe was late. They adopted same system but with more horizontal lines (625 I think). When color TV started they improved NTSC (read: Never Twice Same Color) by adopting PAL. PAL never changes color like NTSC does. Now only about 8-10% of households in Europe have HDTV while in US it is 55%.

Our conversation prompted me to learn more about Beatles and recording techniques. First two albums they produced were pretty bad recorded on BTR (British Tape Recorder) - 2 track thing that was remake of German war era recorder. Later they switch to 4 track Studers and later to 8 Tracks.

Not only equipment but also recording techniques improved. At one point Paul was using speaker as a microphone to make his lousy sounding violin bass (Hoffner) sound more punchy. Violin bass is unfortunately very short scale and won't sound punchy - no matter what. For that they had to go to Rickenbacker bass (I thing starting in Paperback Writer).
I'm not sure how much of bad sound is equipment and how much recording but even remastered pieces don't have clarity of best today's efforts. I don't question that sound might be surprisingly good but later Beatles recordings will be proportionally better.

I shouldn't have said that the Europeans had HDTV before North America.
What I meant to say was that the European television transmission technology was superior to ours.
The signal was clearer and cleaner in most of the modern Euro countries than what we ever had in North America prior to HDTV.
If you had travelled there you would know what I mean.

And I am old, 60 years old,and I have been in this hobby for almost 40 years, so there are a lot of things that aren't news to me, but I know there is much to be learned also.

I think there are better connectors than XLR,and in my experience the differences in quality of XLRs from Soundcraft to Neutrik to Xhadow is quite evident.

BNC would be better, and sraight soldered connections the best.
How do I know?
Because I direct solder most of the time.

The more connectors you get rid of the better.

By the way, they are re-releasing the original Beatles catalog from the original master mono English tapes.
When they come out have a listen and you'll know what I have been talking about.

I am not a vintage junkie, but some things just haven't really been surpassed.
The Quad 57 mid range,is still something that most modern day speaker designers are trying to emulate.

Some things you don't mess with, like Coca Cola.

Lacee - what you said about Europeans being ahead of US in HDTV having it for years is not exactly true.

First standard program (other than test transmissions) HDTV transmission in Europe happened in January 2004.

I bought my HDTV TV in 2001/2002 and since then I had HDTV only (whole day) broadcast on CH 11-1 (PBS) plus other channels about 50% HDTV. It is more than 3 years before Europe and as I mentioned HDTV is broadcast over the air here.

It has nothing to do with XLR cables - subject of this thread - sorry Darrenmc

Lacee -

Saying things like "you're obviously young" or "you have a lot to learn" is immature and rude.

I don't know what gave you an idea that I'm young. I hope you don't claim to be older just to give more weight to your statements - that would be plain silly.

You keep repeating "based on 50's design" - it does not mean they performed the same. Everything around us is based on some older designs - but most of the time is better. The duty of design engineer is to obsolete existing designs/production.

Somehow you claim that Europeans are "way ahead" in recording and technology. What you fail to understand is that there are valid reasons for everything and HDTV mentioned by you was later in US because of government requirement that proposed standard has to be broadcastable in HDTV by air (not true in Europe). Because of this requirement everybody has free access to digital television. Telephone standards like CDMA (spread spectrum) are ahead of European GSM. Just look where progress of technology happened - University of Chicago alone has over 80 Nobel prize winners with more than half of it in Physics and Chemistry. Look where companies like Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, IBM, Motorola etc are located. When I was young and build my EL34 guitar amps I had to translate things from German language since German companies like Telefunken, Siemens, Grundig were dominating. Today US took over and companies like Telefunken went bankrupt (Vishay bought them). English is dominating in technical field and companies like Siemens have engineering meetings in Germany conducted in English (my friend attends).

As for measurement in inches, feet, and ounces - there is nothing wrong with it - especially now when computers handle everything. UK still uses lbs, ounces, inches and to make it even worse other units like "stone". Show me how does it stop progress of technology.

As for quality of recordings - I listen to Beatles "Love" reissue and it is very well recorded - but still does not compare to new digital recordings.

Yoy're saying that there are many things from the past that are better than today. Can you name a few? - Things that nobody was able to make better (but not TT cartridge since I would have hard time to find modern "mono" cartridge to compare). Maybe some cell phones that were made better in 50's than today? How about better quality laser printers in 50's?

Isn't it interesting that there will be new releases of the Beatles catalog.
They will be mostly using the UK mono mixes.
Have a listen Kijanki,and then tell me those masters were inferior.
The lps and cds that were available to the North American market were gross.
Kijanki, there were many things from the past that are as good or better than today.
Art Dudley from Stereophile is having a love affair with old turntables and 78 rpm records and there are some new/old cartridges based on 50's designs.

Old analog TV is not better than HDTV.
The Europeans were way ahead of North Americans, they have had it for years.
Now if you want to question why some people feel things from the past are better,ask yourself why you still measure the world in ounces, feet and inches and miles and the rest of the world does not?

You have a lot to learn, I understand where you are coming from.Perhaps you need to hear some good lps played on some good vinyl set ups.
You are obviously young and I am old, so you are at a disadvantage.
I was there as a musician when amps went from tubes to solid state,and back to tubes if you didn't notice.
Those old Vox amps are much sought after for the distortion (when you want it)and for the tone.As are old pre CBS Fender amps.
People today love the sound of SET,low powered tube amps, that are based on tube circuit designs from the 20's and 30's and that's before my time.
Technology is a wonderful thing, but it serves no use when it takes the life out of the music.
Maybe when you get a few more years into this hobby and experience some of the oldie goldies you'll see where I am coming from.

Lacee - I can only compare CD to CD since, as I mentioned before, I don't do LP. I can tell you by listening to record - popular or jazz what decade they come from. I have remastered Pink Floyd album and it doesn't sound as good as many new CDs (2000 and up). Quality of pressing LPs has nothing to do with it since today releases of old Beatles stuff show noise, distortions - lack of clarity in general. Recording equipment 40-50 years ago cannot even compare to what is available now. Why do you think they were recording mono? - not because they like it. On some older recordings you can even hear copying (I don't know exact name for that) from layer to layer of tape. My friend who works in recording studio said that they had to rewind every tape in storage once a year to minimize copying effect. They tossed expensive analog recorders and replaced them with modern digital 24/192 gear. Studios that already have digital are switching to DSD. I have David Russell one of the latest recordings made in DSD and sound quality is incredible. Progress took place in cables, microphones and even stage gear. Beatles played out on 30W VOX amps with a lot of distortions because nothing else was available no matter how much money you had. Not every modern recording studio uses best microphones or cables but some do and it shows.

What amazes me is that many people still believe that everything was better then - like audio or cars. I don't know much about TT cartridges, for instance, but I suspect that you wouldn't be able to find in 50s or 60s cartridge that is half as good as todays best ones.

I hope you're not claiming that old analog TV was better than HDTV. Why do you think audio was?

At least you and I agree that"old recordings remastered sound much cleaner than the same recordings on the same media(cd)"
The first releases of Beatles on cd were horible and made even poor lp pressings sound superior.
Keep in mind Beatles lps were pressed in the millions and even the North American lps were remixed from the original English pressings.
Again what you fail to grasp, is to differentiate between the final sound that you have heard and the original recording.
Quantity not quality was the rule of the day,get the product out to the masses.
None of the classic jazz lps ever had the problems associated with mass production.
They were pressed in small numbers.
When I listen to a used original vinyl lp of Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy, the instruments and his voice sound very real,more like the real thing in my room.
This doesn't happen on all lp's and mostly never with cd.

Again it was the simplicity of the recording techniques and the very limitations of the technology of those days that contribute to this illusion.
The better we got at recording the worse most of it sounds and less of the illusion.

"Ive never heard of remastered new recording"
That depends on what time frame you consider new.
They have remastered Van Morrison, Pink Floyd,Neil Young to name a few.
These are all artists that were new to me back a few decades ago, and they are newer than the Armstrong sessions.
I think everyone is in agreement that re-mastering is an improvement no matter from what era,but you have to have something that was good in the first place.
Most of the re-mastered sonic blockbusters, were considered good sounding recordings in their day even when they were mass produced.
But remember, the very best master tapes are used.
Remastering does not prove deficient technology before as you say Kijanki, it validates how good that technology really was.
It lets you hear it closer to the way it was recorded, before the signal got destroyed by over processing, and poor manufacturing practises.

Lacee - CD might be not as good as LP but judging different period Beatles on CD I can see big difference in quality between early and late Beatles recording. Long time ago I had Beatles on vinyl and it was pretty much the same - early recordings sounded poorly. There is, of course, recording studio/engineer factor but I'm talking average.

What puzzles me is that certain old recordings on CD praised by some as great sounding sound bad on my system. It couldn't be system resolution since I have very modest gear. I'm not a musician and don't have very good/trained hearing but can hear difference clearly.

Abbey road was one of the LPs recorded well, but can you find earlier Beatles recording that sounded better than Abbey Road?

Old recordings "remastered" sound much cleaner than the same recordings on the same media (CD). It is not even noise but clarity/transparency in general. Do you know how they remaster records? Remastering alone proves deficient technology before - I've never heard of remastered new recording.

Everyone is waitng for the Beatles catalogue to be given the same sonic makeover as some other artist's catalogues have.
If it is done on cd only and if it is given as much care as the Martins did with Love, then those would be far superior to the muck that has been released of Beatles material on cd.thus far.
It is very obvious to most of us why the first Beatles cd's sound so bad.
Most of the early cd's paled in comparison to the lp's back in cd's infancy.
Maybe you have forgotten or just weren't around then.
If the catalogue is also available on lp in 180 gram pressings at 45 rpm, I think that would open even the most jaded eyes about how great the original recordings of the Beatles were.
They recorded at Abbey Road the same studio that released some great classical recordings, they used the same gear and when they were hooked up with George Martin and his engineers, magic was made.
Maybe those more familiar with the later Beatles feel that the early stuff was primitive in comparison, it really wasn't.But most of it was mono and that was better than the hard vocal to the right, band to the left stereo treatment on the stereo versions.
Sgt Pepper was the pivotal lp, that unleashed everyone's imaginations and potential, those of the musicians and the recording engineers.
Sgt. Pepper with all it's sound effects was recorded on just 4 tracks, not 32, 48 or more that are available today.
I am not saying that the technology today sucks.
Proof of this is the Love disc.
It's just that to me, the problem isn't with the tech, it's with the people at the controls.
Have a listen to some of the remastered 180 gram, 45 rpm lp re-issues of the Blue note recordings from the 1960's if you want an example of how modern tech done correctly can improve upon the older tech that was also done correctly.
It's win, win, 2 + 2 equals four, simplicity.
If there was good sound to begin with you have half the battle won.
If the original recording(quality of recording, not musical content)was poor, then there really isn't too much you can do to improve it.
The old silk purse from a sow's ear concept.

What I am saying is that great recordings have been made from the 50's on up thru to today. Great recording engineers make the difference, not the technology. I have 16bit recordings that are amazing and I have the latest SACD's that are rather conventional sounding. Some tube recordings from the past are amazing, while others sound like crap. I will say that mainstream recording practices are quite abhorant...sound that is compressed, multitracked from here to the timbuk 2 and all of it put through mixing boards that can suck the lifeforce out of even the best source.

Dave - we talkin' correlation here - exceptions always happen.

I have a vast collection of unique and hard to find CD's. Most are classical and jazz but they do put to shame many recordings from both the past and present (vinyl included). Great recordings are made by people who care and have an ear for the music they are recording...the technology used seems to be unimportant in many cases.

Lacee - Boom box people don't listen to vinyl but they influence recording quality (as well as MP3 people).

I do have The Beatles "Love" but it's remastered CD. It has nothing to do with pressing quality. It just simply means that somebody altered the master tape by cleaning it up (improving). I have no idea what was improved (other than obvious lack of noise) but I can tell they sound much cleaner and more transparent.

If you really think, that there was nothing wrong with original recordings and only pressing was deficient then why CDs made of the same material sound poor (compare to CDs made of later songs) and why early songs were mono? It wasn't Beatles desire to record mono - it was just poor state of recording industry.

I agree that today we often do gimmicks instead of putting money into the process. 200 feet of XLR cable should be of high quality but my 0.5m XLR IC runs above $2k retail and asssuming $1k per foot for the highest quality cable means $200k just for one mentioned 200 feet cable. No studio can survive this. Stereophile "reference" recordings are made with high quality cables (and their names are listed).

Yes music was mostly dumbed down in quality and content over the years.
The more way you could alter the signal the better it must be was the way things went in most studios.
Remember the Aphex Aural Exciter?
It was suppossed to be the best thing you could process a recording with since sliced cheese.
But that's what it was ,sliced cheese.
It is long gone.

But a lot of other toys filled in the gap.

The old engineers had to rely on getting it right the first time, and so did the musicians.
It wasn't about fix it in the mix.

Not so today.
You mention the early Beatles recordings sounding lousy.
That's not the recording, it's the pressings.
Have you given a listen to the Beatles Love cd ?
Modern tech has really done a great job here.
Yet most of the stuff was recorded on 4 tracks and looped together.
But Sir Martin was a master, as this cd illustrates.
If it wasn't good on those old master tapes to begin with this cd would not sound as good as it does today.

There are many more examples from Rudy van Gelder that show how a good recording can stand the test of time.

As for most people listening to boom boxes, I believe they are now buying turntables and the very same vinyl records I am talking about.

"If everything you play thru your system sounds good,then there is something going on that is masking the differences."

Lacee - absolutely agree. I'm not into vinyl for the same reason I'm not into drugs - addictive and expensive. Is vinyl really coming back? - I thought it was dead.

On many occasions memory plays trick on us and we remember good sound of 60s, 70s, etc. People often believe that gear was better. Why would it be? Just look at HDTV. Nobody sane would say that picture was better in sixties.

I often listen to old recording praised by other people on this forum for sound quality and find them less transparent, distorted and often noisy. The good popular example would be The Beatles recordings. If you listen to first ones and the last ones you'll see progress audio recording made. They started playing out on 30W Vox amps that had tons of distortion not because they liked it but because nothing else was available.

Today's technology, like CD, is often a compromise of quality for practicality but is constantly improving. I just read Stereophile review of $17k Meridian 808.2 CD player. John Atkinson says that it's the finest player he ever heard (it should be for $17k).

As for the quality of the recordings, I noticed that while dynamic range of some recordings is preserved, most of recordings have very compressed dynamic range. We represent very small buying power and sales are oriented towards people who listen on boom boxes.

Some old recordings sound like shit,I will agree,
that all new recordings are superior I do not agree.

Most if not all the mags that I read, rave about the re-issued modern pressings of vintage jazz recorded on vintage gear.And I have to agree.

The sound off those old masters is the reason why the new re-issues sound so good.
However there have been instances where over stressed pressing plants have run into problems now that vinyl has made a comeback.
Some 200 gram pressings had serious problems, the old original pressings were better.

The reason why many of the old recordings sound so real is because of the minimal amount of dicking around with electronic toys.
All the gimmicks they use on modern recording sessions today weren't around way back when.
In fact most of the modern recordings are not done in real time .
Individual musicians "phone in" their parts and it is all pasted together with computer programs.
Not very many recordings are done live, off the floor anymore.
I will say that I agree that when done this way modern recordings can sound good.
But not many are and not many do.

Adding a touch of reverb and maybe tweaking the tone was about the only tools the old guys had to play with.

Keeping it simple,most often sounds the best.
As do the first takes of a live recording.

Listening to some of the old classic jazz lp's, cut live for the most part, still sound more like the real thing to me than most of the cd's I have bought in the last 20 years.

If everything you play thru your system sounds good,then there is something going on that is masking the differences.

Lacee - old recordings sound like shit in comparison to best current recordings. You could even tell by the amount of distortion and noise what decade they come from. To add insult to injury they digitized them long time ago when high quality low jitter clocks were not available. As a result they contain jitter that is impossible to remove.

The fact that certain studio uses long runs of generic cables doesn't bother me. I'm not even interested why they do that - it could be ignorance or lack of money or a believe that we'll buy any crap (it's true - look what they release!). I cannot help it and can only improve things on my end.

Inductance, capacitance, dielectric absorption, metal purity play role in balanced cables the same way as in unbalanced cables. The only difference is external noise immunity and locking connectors to prevent disaster.

Ralph those records and most all the classic and jazz cut in the 50's and early 60's sound better than today, but I wouldn't say it was because of balanced cables.
I think the fact that the equipment was all tubes back then and you or all people know that tubes rule.
Also, the engineer probably just rode the volume control.
They didn't have all the noise gates and limiters and external electronic crap that they play around with today.
Those old recordings were about as true to real as you could get.
Now what amplification were they using back then?
It was probably push pull and transformer coupled workhorse amps of the Williamson variety, Macs at best.
Certainly nothing with the quality of parts or the technology of todays best amps your's included.
Yet, like you say very good sound and with 200 foot runs of generic cables.
So I guess it doesn't matter what cables or amps you use, as long as both are configured for a true balanced circuit?
I owned the S30, please don't tell me it sounds just the same as your top of the line mono blocks.

Point well taken Ralph. Thanks for the insight and background..it is really something to think about.

Hi Dave_b, of course geometry, the purity of materials and the like all effect the cable- until you have a termination resistance value that is low enough to swamp that stuff out.

As audiophiles, we have been working with single-ended cables that use exotic geometries and materials for so long that it is hard to imagine that those techniques won't also serve balanced lines the same way. If you don't have a termination, that is true. But if you don't have a termination, you will be limited in how long the cable can be, and you will be subject to the various artifacts that those materials and geometries impose.

Mercury records use to record the Minneapolis Symphony at Northrup Auditorium on the UofM campus here in Minneapolis. They used their recording truck to do the recordings- it had the recorders built-in to the truck. They placed the mics at the optimum location in the hall, and ran the mic signal a good 200(!) feet to the truck, which was parked in back. You have to ask yourself: how did they get away with that in 1958 when no exotic cable industry existed, yet did it in such a way that no matter how you improve your own stereo, those LPs continue to sound better?

The answer: the balanced line standard really works; really eliminates cable artifact! But-0 you have to play with equipment that supports the standard to really get the significance of that fact.

Ralph seems like a reasonable man who keeps himself open to a free exchange of ideas. Sadly, your profound understanding and insights into the realm of audio preclude any of us mere mortals from even attempting a discussion with your most knowledgable eminence. FYI, I also spoke with the owner of Merlin Music Systems, the head designer of Synergistic Research, and the head of marketing for Shunyata...I hope that was ok with you oh great ONE. By the way, I think Atmosphere makes just about the best amps available. If I had the room for a pair I would re-mortgage my house:O)

That's weird-I just checked on him and he was hooking up some single ended tube gear with RCA's! See, depends on the observer and when you check on him. Of course with an infinite number of possible outcomes one should not be surprised that we are both right...right?

>>03-25-09: Dave_b
I agree with you somewhat Atmasphere<<

I'm sure Ralph will sleep well tonight knowing that.

No chase - Schrodinger's cat is dead!

I agree with you somewhat Atmasphere, but there will always be the cables geometry, network/non-network, insulation and conductor purity/type of metal that will act as a variable. To risk sounding redundant, the technology will get us close, but we will always have to chase Schrodinger's cat the rest of the way:O)

Dave_b, I agree with you 100%. My point is simply that if you want to take advantage of what balanced line operation has to offer, you have to adhere to the balanced line standard to get it.

Not doing so is very similar to running a high performance car on the wrong octane. At that point everyone will agree that the car is not performing at its best.

Imagine IOW that there is a technology that can eliminate cable differences, such that all cables sound excellent, like the best you ever heard. That is what balanced-line operation is for. It works too, but you have to adhere to the standard.

In the end, the only person who is right is yourself. What YOU HEAR is what matters...not what SOMEONE ELSE says you SHOULD be hearing. Knowledge, understanding and sound engineering get us most of the way there, but for the rest of the journey? Well, I'm afraid you are on your own my friend:O)

Lacee, this is a good portion of the reason that we saw several of those letters to Stereophile in the mid-90s from 'audio engineers', wherein the engineer was convinced that the high end audio market was composed of charlatans. In the letters, the engineers were complaining that in high end audio there was this huge market of cables- IOW that somehow the cables were responsible for big differences in sound.

The engineers knew this was not true, and so were trying to expose the charlatans. But as you and I know, cables **do** make a difference, so what gives? Why would the engineers go off like that?? The reason is that they use balanced line equipment in the studio, and all of it supports the balanced line standard, whereas in high end audio, very little balanced equipment actually supports the standard. So in their world the cables **don't** make a difference, and not because the gear they use is any less transparent.

So the reality behind these letters was real, but so is that behind high end cables. That reality is simply that when you ditch the termination standard, the cables will have an artifact. As a manufacturer, we recognized this back in the 1980s, and so when we introduced the MP-1, which was the first high end audio balanced line product (1989), we made sure we supported the standard. A lot of other manufacturers have gotten on the bandwagon since then, Audio Research, Aesthetix, BAT, Roland, Wadia, etc., but very few of them acknowledge the standard and so you get cable differences, counter to the raison d'etre of balanced-line operation.

In fact, a number of manufacturers simply have the connection because it is stylish or convenient. So in your supposition, is Atma-Sphere the *only* one that actually supports the standard? -no, we are one of the very few.

Then I guess companies like Meridian had better get with the program.

Same goes with my Audio Aero Capitole that I run balanced out into the balanced in of my mono blocks.
I can distinguish cable differences, does that mean that the Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 or the Red Dragon or both are not up to industry standards when using their balanced connections?

I always thought that the concept of running balanced was to eliminate or lessen the effects of long runs of cables.
Regular rca interconnects can pick up noise and loose signal if they are longer than 20 feet.

I have great respect for Atmasphere and their products,but I'm having a hard time with the concept that a properly designed balanced system would eliminate the differences between xlr connected balanced cables.
Is Atmasphere the only company that can claim this?
Is everybody else wrong?

There are just so many variables in cable materials, construction and in the quality of XLR's and how they are terminated to the wires,that makes me wonder just how can these things differences be eliminated?

Perhaps a trip to the local Atmasphere dealer and some cable swapping would be a lesson learned one way or the other.

Hi Lacee, do I understand right that in your post above, the cable shootout was going on between the source and the preamp?

The preamp is designed to support the balanced standard, but its inputs are high impedance to make it easier to drive. The result is that sources that don't support the standard can still work with the preamp, but you will hear cable artifacts- this sounds to me like what you experienced.

In any event, if the cable is not terminated you can get into differences. I'm pointing this out because like I mentioned earlier, the balanced system exists for the sole reason of eliminating cable artifact. So if you are hearing artifact, the system is not being employed to its fullest extent.

I haven't played her since.

At that cable shootout, a Meridian G08 was the source into the Atmasphere MP3.

We all preferred the Harmonic.

The outcome of this was that my friend replaced a complete run of Cardas Neutral Ref with the Harmonic magic.

This is balanced xlr cables from his tone arm,from his Meridan,and balance xlr out to the servo amps(these were mod to accept balanced inputs when he got the MP3 pre amp).

It was a worthwhile expense.
His whole system has a more robust sound.
If his vinyl sound remained the same as with the Cardas, I would maybe agree with what you say, but it too benefitted from the wire upgrade.

Maybe the XLR's that Harmonic use are superior to what Cardas uses.
The Neutral Ref is not the top of the heap, whereas the Harmonic were at the time.
Perhaps not a fair comparison.

What I do find intersting is that the Atmasphere pre amp allowed the differences between cables to be heard.
I wouldn't want to own a pre amp or any electronics that did not.

Ralph I don't doubt your findings, but are they based on measurements alone?

Some of us hear dead people.

Lacee, I agree. I suspect that your CD player does not support the balanced line standard, and so the cables are making a difference where they should not have.

RCA cables have a connection standard, but no termination standard. Balanced line has a connection standard, but also has a termination standard, which is 600 ohms. It is that low impedance which makes the difference. If your source has a high output impedance, it can't swamp the effects of the cable and so the cable artifact can be heard. That's not taking advantage of everything that balanced line has to offer.

In the past, you used our preamp, which supports that standard, and so a fairly inexpensive cable worked fine. So IMO your experience is spot-on.

I don't know if I could have sat through that much Pat Barber, regardless of the cables :)

Hello,Ralph,I used Canare speaker wire and canare wire in balancd cables when I had my Atmasphere MP3 and S30 and stacked Quad 57.
The sound was good,I was happy, no reason to experiment.
Now I have other gear that needs balanced cables.
This time an Audio Aero Capitole cd direct into a pair of Red Dragon power amps into 15 inch Tannoys.
I was now running very thin 14 ft runs of solid core silver wire to my Tannoys,and I was using the very same run of Canare balanced IC.
Since I had excellent results using canare IC and Canare speaker wire I thought I would audition a run of IC from the same company as my speaker cables.
This time there was an improvement over the canare cables, so I bought the silver wired version.
I am at a loss to explain why there was a difference.
Is it because the wire is the same guage and material as the speaker?Synergy again?
Was the Clear Day solid silver not a good combination with the copper Canare?
Was it the difference in construction of the Xhadow XLR's on the clear day compared to the Neutrik's on the Canare?
I loved my time with the Quads and Atmasphere gear, one of my better systems.
I know it isnot the electronics that are masking cable differences.
A friend of mine has the servo powered Acoustat 4 speakers and an MP3(he liked mine so bought one and kept it).
He wired everything up with Cardas neutral ref. balanced.
Then he experimented with some nordost and eventually settled with Harmonic Tech magic two.He invited 5 of his audio friends to a cable shoot out.
The Cardas Neutral, Nordost ValHalla and Harmonic Tech magic two were auditoned,and we all got very sick of listening to the same Pat Barber track.
Several of us confirmed that the Harmonic balanced cables gave his system a more robust yet detailed sound.
The Nordost cost more but didn't work as well as the Harmonic but outperformed the Cardas.
Sorry Ralph,but that's 5 pair of ears that voted for the Harmonic cables, and we didn't know the price discrepencies.
No agendas other than what cable gave the best sound.
I should add that all cables were the same length and were factory terminated.
I don't think it was a case of mass dillusion.

I've run a lot of cables as a manufacturer. Not only that but we made the first balanced line product for high end audio- the MP-1 preamplifier. Over the years one of the more obvious deals for an interconnect between the preamp and the amp has been the Mogami mentioned several times already on this thread.

If you know only one thing about the balanced line system, the thing to know is that its purpose in life is to eliminate interconnect artifact!

In order to do that the equipment that the cables are used with has to support the standard: pin 1 is ground, pin 2 is non-inverting, pin 3 inverting, but most of all whatever is driving the cable should be able to drive a 600 ohm load without ill effects, which is how all the cable artifacts are swamped out. Most high end audio manufacturers don't get that last part.

IOW if the standard is met, the cable and its length will hardly affect the sound at all- and will be far more accurate than single-ended. So if you are hearing big differences between cables, that is an indicator that you are not getting everything out of them they have to offer.

I should add that the other IC I used were Cardas Golden Ref and Shunyata Aries, both good cables yet each had their own sonic strenghts and weaknesses with the Clear day speaker wire.
The Clear Day combo just clicked .
Maybe it's because the same solid core silver wire is used in both the speaker and interconnect, or it's because the xhadow XLR are really good.

I am really impressed with the Clear Day balanced interconnects.
The xhadow XLR are a real treat in a solid silver interconnect and the price that vonwaffen is charging is very reasonable for the quality of construction and parts.
I did a free audition of them to see how they would match up with his speaker cables.
Synergy.
Iknow this is used a lot in this hobby, but my system never played music so effortlessly before.

From my experience the Antipodes Audio Katipos will stand out amongst that lot. As good as any silver cable I have ever heard without any hard silver sound. They aren't too well known in the USA as they are made in New Zealand, but the whole range are fast, open, dynamic and well balanced. Has a half-price, 30 day money back offer on Audiogon last time I looked.

Darrenmc - what about Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II?

Well I'm looking a quite a few cables, some I can demo, some I can't. I can afford to go up to $550 cdn($425 US) for a 1m and .5m or another 1m lengths, I need 2 sets. Some of the cables in that range are Unity Audio Solid links, Alpha Core Goertz Micropurl AG's, PNF Audio Icon's, Purist Audio Vesta's, Kimber Hero's, Harmonic Tech - Thruthlinks(Demos), DH Labs Air Matrix's, Aural Thrills Black Axioms. Morrow MA2's and Grover Huffmans may be pushing it. The 3 I'd really like to try are Virtual dynamics Testament 2.0's, Reality Cables, and Audio Metallurgy GA-0's but the funds won't allow me to.

Truth Links are by no means a reference wire, but it is superior to the others mentioned. As I said, if your new at this stuff, enjoy the ride...maybe the 'Bama will send you some audio stimulus money (assuming you don't already pay taxes).

Alpha Core and Mogami mediocre studio cable wire? Not in my system. Alpha Core TQ series is a nice cable in your budget and there is a trial period so there is no risk.

Ah yes, the micropurls...owned them when they were first released. Couldn't send them back fast enough. Enjot the trip...it took me many years and much cash to go through all the offerings...studio cable like mogami and Goertz are just a couple examples of mediocre wire. But hey, have some fun and play the field for awhile. When you grow up maybe we can talk.

The Cable Company recommended Aplha Core Goertz Micropurl AG XLR's. They said it's has been a proven match with Bryston gear over the years.

I'm selling a new pair of HT Truthlinks for $195...hard to beat!

If you enjoy transparency: Before you decide that "can't listen to any other cable", try the Kimber Hero. Within your price range it's VERY hard to beat for honesty.

i just upgraded to the canare with my b&k gear. It seems to me to make it more fluid, almost like the system is breathing better if that makes sense

I agree with Tvad and Chosenhandle , I'm a great fan of Mogami Neglex 2534 XLR too... so pure so open so flat you can't listen any other cable