As long as we're talking about arsenic-based life :

Well Dana I continued to experiment and fill 3 boxes with expensive and el cheapos with no satisfaction either way.

Then came this article 6 years ago on these outstanding DIY twisted pairs and they've been in all my systems since. For the reasons why read down to Colin Millers essay. They are easy to make, inexpensive and as good as anything I have tried on different systems. Highly recommend them over the luxury brands and the zip cord.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_10_2/ultralink-CL414-cable-5-2003.html

Thanks for the link!

I currently use Axiom speaker cable, but that article is very interesting. I just may have to try these...

Dana

I built some of those after reading about them. They definitely changed the sound of my speakers...for the worse.

I now use Canare 4S11 with both pairs connected to the binding posts at each end for the main channels, and Belden 12 gauge everywhere else.

Evolution is a fact, it has been observed.

Natural selection is a theory to explain evolution.

Natural selection is just one theory.

I want people to enjoy their music. If you *think* it sounds better and enjoy it, bully for you.

My problem with Mapleshade is them extolling the virtues of cable break-in and crystal treatment. I just haven't heard ANY compelling evidence that either of those things could possibly make a difference. Consequently, the credibility of the other properties of the product become suspect to me.

Chris, I don't understand why/how those Brian Florian cables the John linked could be "worse" than regular 12 gauge. Can you simple it down for me?

Charles, good to hear from you again! When you didn't reply to your birthday wishes, we thought that we might have lost you for good. Yeah, that arsenic is great stuff.

These speaker cable articles have been well-known for as long as 19 years and there's certainly no startling info that would indicate that there's audible benefits to be found. I first read of the Davis work in the July, 1994 issue of Audio where he wrote a similar but not entirely identical article as his 1991 AES paper(I wasn't an AES member at that time). One new point was that he emphasized "There are real, measurable differences among speaker cables. However, for average systems and short cables, these differences are at the threshold of audibility"(p.42). Then in the July, 1995 Audio, Villchur(developer of the acoustic suspension AR speaker)wrote "Speaker Cables, Measurements vs Psycho-Acoustic Data" , testing the Davis "threshold of audibility" and found that applying data on just noticeable differences to those very high frequencies in the Davis measurements indicated that they were "almost always below the threshold of audibility"(P.37).

As to the DIY cable article, it's generally well-written, but there's nothing to show that the procedure there results in anything other that creating the equivalent of an 11ga cable. Inductance of a parallel set of conductors is directly proportionate to the distance between their centers and inversely proportionate to the radius of each conductor. So, the lowest inductance is a result of a very closely spaced pair of thick wires. You'd think, therefore, that no one would be silly enough to sell a cable composed of very thin, but widely separated conductors, but at least one supplier(which won't be identified, but whose initials are Mapleshade)offers a very thin "Double" pair which it recommends be separated a foot or two on the way to the speaker.

The way to get low resistance is an adequately thick conductor for the distance involved, with the two conductors very closely spaced to allow inductance to cause no audible effects. Standard lamp cord of an appropriate gauge(I use 16ga)does this job as well as anything.

If facts are based on observations, we're screwed.