I've been using Monster XP cable to connect my KEF Reference 107s, 104/2s, 103.2s and Polk Audio RT5000 HT system. The Monster XP may not be state-of-the-art, but its none too shabby. I recently decided to try out the QED Silver Anniversary speaker cables, which are very highly regarded in GB.
I received the QED Silver Anniversary and initially was struck by the small gauge of the wire, no more than 16 AWG. I was a little disappointed by this and figured it can't be that good. I also noticed that the wire was far less flexible than the Monster XP so harder to manipulate. I am assuming this is because all the copper strands are coated in Silver. It took me a while to measure and cut them to 24ft lengths (pretty long) and to terminate them with the excellent monster self crimping banana plugs that make for a sound connection. Honestly, after seeing the Silver Anniversary cables when I unwrapped them, I wasn't expecting that much, and felt that I'd wasted my money.
Well, I didn't waste my money, in fact its one of the best investments I've made. I was staggered by the difference in performance. The sound was so much more than I've been used to for the past several years. The Monster XP sounded soft, heavily veiled, and far less dynamic in comparison. With the QEDs, the soundstage opened up tremendously. They were more articulate with a lot more detail and transparency, without sacrificing tonal accuracy or the exaggeration of a particular frequency. Looks can certainly be deceiving.
If you are shopping for really good speaker cables, check these out.
I've been using Monster XP cable to connect my KEF Reference 107s, 104/2s, 103.2s and Polk Audio RT5000 HT system. The Monster XP may not be state-of-the-art, but its none too shabby. I recently decided to try out the QED Silver Anniversary speaker cables, which are very highly regarded in GB.
I received the QED Silver Anniversary and initially was struck by the small gauge of the wire, no more than 16 AWG. I was a little disappointed by this and figured it can't be that good. I also noticed that the wire was far less flexible than the Monster XP so harder to manipulate. I am assuming this is because all the copper strands are coated in Silver. It took me a while to measure and cut them to 24ft lengths (pretty long) and to terminate them with the excellent monster self crimping banana plugs that make for a sound connection. Honestly, after seeing the Silver Anniversary cables when I unwrapped them, I wasn't expecting that much, and felt that I'd wasted my money.
Well, I didn't waste my money, in fact its one of the best investments I've made. I was staggered by the difference in performance. The sound was so much more than I've been used to for the past several years. The Monster XP sounded soft, heavily veiled, and far less dynamic in comparison. With the QEDs, the soundstage opened up tremendously. They were more articulate with a lot more detail and transparency, without sacrificing tonal accuracy or the exaggeration of a particular frequency. Looks can certainly be deceiving.
If you are shopping for really good speaker cables, check these out.
I am wondering if there are any technical data available for this cable, such as resistance, inductance and capacitance?
24 ft is not a very long run if this cable is indeed 16 ga.
I am still at a loss to know what paramtere in a speaker cable affects soundstage? You can do interesting effects with phase shifting, but that takes an awful lot.
Diana Deutsch has an interesting CD on this: Musical Illusions and Paradoxes; Philomel Records.
Diana is a well known researcher from UC San Diego with many published papers to her name.
I am certainly no technical guru, so cannot answer appropriately. What I can say from my own listening perspective, is that the Silver Anniversary cable has had a significant effect on the soundstage that I hear through my loudspeakers. I believe this is a direct result of the improved signal transfer. If you go to QEDs website, www.qed.co.uk, you will find technical specifications.
I am certainly no technical guru, so cannot answer appropriately. What I can say from my own listening perspective, is that the Silver Anniversary cable has had a significant effect on the soundstage that I hear through my loudspeakers. I believe this is a direct result of the improved signal transfer. If you go to QEDs website, www.qed.co.uk, you will find technical specifications.
Thanks for the link; I found the tech page.
I don't see anything out of the ordinary from the specs. It is a bit less than a US 14 ga wire, about 13 1/2 ga
Ind .51uh/meter and 42 pf/meter.
Electrically it will perform equivalently to a 12-14 ga zip cord.
Perceptions are another animal altogether. That is why bias controls were introduced into human perception studies a long time ago because perception can be unreliable and one doesn't know when it is reliable, especially for small change detections.
Historically speaking, this cable will be sonically equivalent to 12ga-14ga speaker cables if bias controls are implemented in the listeing session.
Thanks for the link; I found the tech page.
I don't see anything out of the ordinary from the specs. It is a bit less than a US 14 ga wire, about 13 1/2 ga
Ind .51uh/meter and 42 pf/meter.
Electrically it will perform equivalently to a 12-14 ga zip cord.
Perceptions are another animal altogether. That is why bias controls were introduced into human perception studies a long time ago because perception can be unreliable and one doesn't know when it is reliable, especially for small change detections.
Historically speaking, this cable will be sonically equivalent to 12ga-14ga speaker cables if bias controls are implemented in the listeing session.
'Mate',
in the context of this thread, your patronizing review of the specs from the website url I provided to you and your commentary on bias controls leads me to believe that you are either suggesting that I am a liar, or hearing/mentally challenged and unable to adequately percieve differences in sonic qualities, with the result that I am imagining things.
To be brutally frank, I find your asinine observations (which you've 'bestowed' upon me on another thread), to be a complete load of cobblers knackers.
I'm wasting my time and I really shouldn't bother responding to this, but here goes... Do you seriously believe that most every highly respected Audio publication and reviewer are perpetuating falsehood and rubbish when comparing the sonic qualities of cables and their synergies with different pieces of equipment? Have all these learned men been deluding themselves for more than 30 years or even duping the public with an elaborate hoax to line their own pockets? People such as Julian Hirch (God rest his soul), J Gordon Holt, John Atkinson, and Martin Colloms to name a very few of those who have dedicated their time and energy to the pursuit of audio excellence are not talking out their backsides, or imagining things when they review systems including cables and interconnects. Yes, there are snake oil products and marketing messages that are full of BS out there. You know this, I know this, we all know this. but that does not mean that all cables are created equal. That does not mean that when someone hears significant differences that they are BS-ing or imagining things. That does not mean we have to act like the Waffen SS at the first sign anyone notes they hear a difference in cables. Specs do not tell the whole story. You have to listen....Thats what AUDIO is all about. If you can fully and accurately judge a product's acoustic nuances by reading the basic specs on website, then you will only be the second to do so, after Madame Palm reader.
Anyway, I frankly couldn't care a pair of nuns knickers for your opinion.
in the context of this thread, your patronizing review of the specs from the website url I provided to you and your commentary on bias controls leads me to believe that you are either suggesting that I am a liar, or hearing/mentally challenged and unable to adequately percieve differences in sonic qualities, with the result that I am imagining things.
I didn't get this perception at all - and you have obviously not ready many of mtrycrafts posts or you would realize he is giving you some very helpful, technically-correct information which you are apparently misreading as an insult.
By your response you are more concerned with perception, history and your application of logic than science regarding this matter. That is fine and your prerogative - but don't try to claim antagonism where there is none - save for your unprovoked response.
__________________
Clint DeBoer
Editor in Chief Audioholics
They are numbers, not adjectives up for interpretation.
your commentary on bias controls
I am sorry that bias is a fact of human life. It is out of my hand and control.
leads me to believe that you are either suggesting that I am a liar, or hearing/mentally challenged
Please, read the post, not between the lines that are blank.
unable to adequately percieve differences in sonic qualities, with the result that I am imagining things.
We don't know what you perceived. You explained what you perceived. Knowing the reality of human psychology, human bias, science that applies to the field of audio as well, perceptions are just that. They may be real, they may be not. I wonder why eye witnesses in court are so unreliable?
I place a stick in water and long and behold my perception is that it bent. Did the water bend it or just an illusion?
I wasn't aware that audio is immune from science and the physical world.
To be brutally frank, I find your asinine observations (which you've 'bestowed' upon me on another thread), to be a complete load of cobblers knackers.
Oh, my observation is asinine and you are exempt?
Do you seriously believe that most every highly respected Audio publication
Isn't that somewhat relative, who is bestowing this respect?
I would consider JAES, JASA more respected.
reviewer are perpetuating falsehood and rubbish when comparing the sonic qualities of cables and their synergies with different pieces of equipment?
No one knows, least of all the reviewers know what they are perpetuating with their biased reviews. I didn't create human bias, uncontrolled at that, but it is a fact of life. Well before my time, people much smarter than you or I combined, or most on the board, discovered the vagaries of bias, how it influences us, how our senses are so easy to fool that bias controls were implemented when humans are used to perseive that can be relied on, have real meaning to others.
Perhaps you heard of the double blind, placebo controlled protocols in medicine? Why do they use it? Why is audio exempt?
Have all these learned men been deluding themselves for more than 30 years
All learned men? Who bestowed that title on them? How do we know this? How are they exempt from human bias that they cannot control?
But, no one knows if they been deluding themselves. We know their observations are unreliable under sighted listeing conditions. I am sorry again if you don't like it. Not my invention but the 'real' learned men who make science a reality brought it forward for our benefit. Some don't like it.
No different from the creation/ID debates.
People such as Julian Hirch (God rest his soul), J Gordon Holt, John Atkinson, and Martin Colloms to name a very few of those who have dedicated their time and energy to the pursuit of audio excellence are not talking out their backsides, or imagining things when they review systems including cables and interconnects.
PLEASE, don't include Julian in the group with the others. He is nothing like them. He knew of bias and the precations to eliminate it. The others, be serious.
Yes, there are snake oil products and marketing messages that are full of BS out there. You know this, I know this, we all know this. but that does not mean that all cables are created equal.
Did I say all cables are created equal? I must have missed that. Please refresh my memory by a link, thanks.
That does not mean we have to act like the Waffen SS at the first sign anyone notes they hear a difference in cables.
Your implications are what?
Specs do not tell the whole story.
Oh, it is a pretty good indication of things to come. Real audio gurus know this.
You have to listen....Thats what AUDIO is all about.
Yes, you do have to listen. Numbers do not sing.
However, how you listen depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to determine audible differences, there is only one protocol that has any meaning, that can produce reliable outcome, bias controls must be implemented. Not up for discussion, incontestable, another fact of life. Not my invention but the 'real' learned men of the past.
Anyway, I frankly couldn't care a pair of nuns knickers for your opinion.
WTF are cobblers knackers? The everlasting gobsmacker (Willie Wonka)
Hey O'Shag switch to decaf.
This is like the umteenth time in the past week where someone insists - contrary to all scientific data/measurements/proof that they heard something that in most cases is not present. Maybe they have poltergists (I do not have a handy dictionary for the correct spelling - but those ghost thingies) or alien abductions are common place in their neighborhood. Next thing, Elvis has not left the building. And when another poster makes a comment usually backed up by scientific processes a flame war starts. I came to this audioholics group because I felt that the people here did not insist on hearing things but wanted scientific proof. Even though there are alot of great people here at AH, there are also a lot of flat earth society members too. That makes it fun!
__________________
Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.
Last edited by Mudcat : 08-29-2004 at 09:35 PM.
Reason: I wasn't mean enough the first time ;-)
QED Silver Anniversary Speaker Cable
Linear Mode
