Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Cable questions

Hi all,

Just wondering what brand cables you folks have tried with your Axioms, and what the results were? I just got the M80's as part of an Epic 80 system, and am considering some new speaker cables and interconnects. I usually like them to be from the same manufacturer. I'm also leaning towards getting the speaker cable bi-wired. I know that it's a debatable subject as to whether or not it improves performance, but the price difference is minimal in most cases. Also, I've rarely heard of bi-wire cable negatively effecting the sound quality. Some of the brands I'm considering are:
Tara Labs (Ref Gen 2 interconnect & RSC Prime 1000 Bi-Wire speaker cable) , Nordost (Blue Heaven interconnect and Blue Heaven bi-wire speaker cable), MIT (AVT-1 interconnect & speaker cable), Kimber (Silver Streak interconnect & 8TC non-bi-wire speaker cable), and Better Cables (Blue Truth interconnect & Blue Truth bi-wire speaker cable)

If anybody has any comments on these selections or other suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Side note: Let me preface this by saying that I am one of those people who believes that cables do make a difference in a system's sound. Please note that I am not saying "expensive cables sound better". I am merely observing that different cables will sound different in a system, and that matching your system with the right sounding cables, can in many cases help the sound quality.

Thanks for your time.

Sully

hmm. ya'll better just apologize. Now.


the cables you mention are pretty pricey and while many will disagree with making any difference you'll have to leave that up to your own ears. I have Audioquest type 4 speaker cables, i bought them when i thought id hear a difference and i might have, i dont even remember! lol but i think it was money well spent because they are quality cables and will last. not to mention looking alot better then the cheap stuff.

if you want something that looks good, ok. but i wouldnt buy expensive cables expecting to hear a significant difference where the money would probbly be better spent on other things. but really its up to you. i tried bi-wiring and i didnt think it made any difference, i think that to buy a biwire cable would definetly be a waste of money but like i said. listen for yourself. but decent ones and get a quality cable, but dont go overboard. i guess thats all the advice i have to offer.

It's all copper.
Unless of course you buy silver.
In any event, electrons are still just electrons. The signal gets from path A to path B....either more expensively, or less expensively.

I think if you do a general search on the forums for "cable" or "wire" or anything similar, you will get plenty of answers that will not answer your question. Mostly because most of them say "it doesn't matter".
I concur.

Sully, no speaker wire(singular)of adequate gauge will make a speaker sound different unless an expensive wire is so poorly designed that it makes the sound quality deteriorate slightly. No effective "matching" is possible. Follow Roger Russell's suggestions and save your money for things that count.

Don't listen to any of emm...they are blowing hot air since they have not personally tested any those that you have mentioned. I run 4TC and tried 8TC and love em. I also like the Nordost line but they are jus too expensive. I personally have heard difference...but that doesnt mean it is better...pick the one you enjoy the most at the price you are willing to buy. Couple of weeks back I tried some JPS Superconductor which are relatively more expensive than my 4TC but I still personally like the sound the 4TC presents.
As with any advice trust your ears not someone elses diction.

Saturn

ps:cables matter...tubes sound great...more power sounds better...a flat frequency curve can be nice but who cares...certain DACs sounds better...in the end trust your own ears not an EE,scientist or my mom.

RSully,
let me be reasonable to both sides of the argument here. Maybe it would be a good idea to try and 'audition' some of these cables first before you go and lay out that kind of money (to me anyways, that's a pile of cash). I'm sure you wouldn't buy speakers without auditioning them first, or at least have the option to return them (like Axiom allows).

I personally don't believe that different cables do make a difference, but you should discover that for yourself. Hopefully there's some audio shops in your area that will allow you to audition some of these and you can decide for yourself (just make sure to double-blind).

In reply to:

---

in the end trust your own ears not an EE,scientist or my mom

---

And as long as you listen while being blind tested, then yes, trust your ears.
That statement would become valid.

In reply to:

---

And as long as you listen while being blind tested, then yes, trust your ears.
That statement would become valid.

---

My statement above may have been too brash. I do not personaly attack scientists or EEs or people on here specifically. I meant it in a general sense as people in general. As I am a cable advocate and do believe a "few" cables do sound better too "my" ears either be it percieved or real. That being, I always say if you like what you hear...and you have researched enough on the product ... thats good enough reason to buy it if you had the notion to do so.

Lots of people say blanket statements and push it as facts.

Ah Saturn you're a good man.
Some day maybe i will have the chance to hear your cables, uh, i mean speakers.

lol....and I know you will want me to blind test em. I'll make sure you are full of malt and hops and would really notice a difference.

Maybe you can bring the man of mystery and if I can convince you guys I can convince the world.

Sully, you should be aware that these items have been shown to possess no differences which are audible to humans. Probably even more conclusive is the test in which bats were unable to distinguish between Kimber, Monster, Nordost and standard 16 gauge lampcord bought for $0.15 a foot.

As a warning I'll describe a case I prosecuted. The defendant started out in a way many would(mistakenly)view as being innocent enough by replacing his speaker wire with cable which cost him 100 times as much. Soon however he was buying progressively more expensive cables in a hopeless quest for greater purity of sound. Unsatisfied by this, he bought DACs in huge quantities to test and possibly achieve more accurate conversion. Then it escalated to all types of separates with multi-thousand dollar price tags and every tweak product available from the audio charlatans who infest the land. He was soon unable to provide his wife and children with food and other essentials; the support of his habit came first. Then on that fateful day he took his gun, put on a skimask and went into the bank. You know the rest. He's now in his cell at the penitentiary listening to a Bose Wave Radio. Take heed.

LOL!!! He got the ultimate penalty.

I am speechless....

Yes, Mike. That was part of the punishment I requested that the court impose as part of the plea bargain. At first the judge was puzzled because he'd heard that Bose was "The Most Respected Name in Sound".

Is it at least plugged into a line conditioner? Lord knows the power in jails is dirty.

Peter, that dog photo is really killing me.
It really is.
I can't stop laughing at it now.

That new picture is growing on me. I still like the other one better though. Your dog always looks like he thinks you're an idiot.

That's what's so great about dogs: they never let you take yourself too seriously.

Man! That's cruel and cold.

Okay Bush.

So where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Not really, Mike, in the long-run it's for his own good. Part of the reason for imprisonment is to shock a person into seeing the error of his ways. Possibly nothing can shock an audiophile more than having to listen to Bose(the guards check on it frequently)and this will eventually make him realize how good he actually had it before he started with the cables, DACs etc. As Peter surmised(incidentally, I agree that Sunny's restored picture is her best), he had immediately requested a Monster Cable Power Conditioner, but after a few days he returned it, reporting that he could "hear no difference". This is encouraging and indicates that he may be well on his way to rehabilitation.

But does the punishment really fit the crime? Where is the mercy! Surely there must be some community service he could perform such as stripping copper wire or perhaps even a 12 step "copper is copper" rehab program.

no more changes now, I mean it.

Anybody want a peanut?

Hey! Don't dangle that baby in front of the dog. You'll fall in bad company with Michael and Steve.

Now the dog looks jealous. But that beautiful baby looks happy.

you can't please all the people all the time...

Your suggestion is quite perceptive, Mike. Actually defense counsel had proposed that the court suspend the imposition of sentence and place the defendant on probation on condition that he undergo a series of double-blind sessions to cure him of his delusions. The judge agreed that might be effective, but believed that the offense was serious enough to require a period of incarceration. Note that if he continues to show improvement the possibility of shock parole exists.

My finger stinks.

Justice is truely deaf.

That was just too classy, kcarlile.

So... another hint on the mysterious JohnK?

Hey Sully,

Sorry about this mess of a discussion here. I believe that quality makes a difference in almost anything. Anybody who says "apples is apples and electrons is electrons" is oversimplifying things. The path of electrons depends substantially on the type and quality of meterials used, and in some cases can be affected by interfering signals if not properly shielded.

A rule of thumb has been to spend about 5-10% of your system cost on cabling, if you believe that cables are a component like anything else in the system. I find it amusing that after all the discussion about Axiom denying speaker break-in and the importance of audio cables, they finally came out with their own line of cables! My M22 instruction manual actually says to use "generic 14 gauge speaker wire," or something similar.

In response: a few years ago I started out with some cheap 16 or 18 gauge speaker cable for my mains. I lived with that for a month or so. Then I walked into an audio shop and bought some of their cheapest cables: Tara Labs Prism Omni ($.85 / foot). They looked pretty thick, at 14 gauge. After installing them I noticed a very tangible smoothing of the frequency response; the high frequencies in particular were calmed substantially. I was always sensitive to the treble with my Paradigm Mini Monitors, as they turned out to be pretty bright.

Audio guys will tell you that the cheaper cables are designed to be more forgiving of lesser equipment, so they might roll off the highs a bit early. By now I believe it's good to avoid the super-cheap, and to go for lower end "hifi" stuff; you don't want cables to be the weak link in the chain of a multi-kilobuck sound system!

have fun,
Cooper

Hi Cblake, Sully,

I would point out that Axiom makes no claims about our cables improving sound quality, and since I wrote the text (as well as the advice in the M22 manual to use generic 14-gauge speaker wire), and act as an advisor and consultant to Axiom, I've pasted the relevant text from the Axiom cable page on the site for you all to read:

"Copper speaker cables and interconnects have no 'sound' of their own."

"Indeed, some exotic cable manufacturers claim that their overpriced wire will actually improve the electrical signals! Not so -- as long as the copper is 99.9999% pure, there is little or no resistance, and the connections are electrically sound, then the cables will carry your signals from source to destination without degradation."

"Axiom offers a full range of high-quality cables and interconnects that feature robust mechanical construction and impeccable electrical characteristics."

"High-value, high-end cables - with no hype." - Ian Colquhoun, president and founder, Axiom.

(For the record, Axiom's bulk 12-gauge speaker cable has a measured electrical resistance of 0.003 ohms per foot, which is electrically and audibly insignificant.)

Now, I entirely understand the urge of audio enthusiasts to attribute "musical" or even poetic qualitites to electrical cables. This is a wonderful hobby, and we're all trying to improve the fidelity and reality of musical reproduction in the home, but scientific fact and laws of physics cannot be ignored. I am not suggesting that using 22-gauge high-resistance cable will not introduce changes that can be measured and may be audible with musical programming.

However, after years of participating in controlled double-blind listening tests at one of the world's most sophisticated acoustical laboratories (the National Research Council in Ottawa, Canada), I have NEVER detected audible differences between 14-gauge/12-gauge generic copper speaker cables and many so-called "exotic" and expensive branded cables, some as thick as a garden hose and costing $1,500 for 2 meters. Nor did my experienced colleagues hear any differences.

It was in my interest, and in the magazine I edited in Canada for 13 years (Sound&Vision) to hear differences in cables. Cable advertising is a big source of revenue for any audio/video magazine. But none of us heard differences, so I stated these results in the magazine. Needless to say, we never received any cable advertising. That may have been a foolhardy editorial stance on my part, since the magazine eventually ceased publication for lack of ad revenues, but as a journalist and editor, I couldn't have slept at night had I reported any differently to readers and subscribers.

When you remove the inherent psychological biases of price, brand, and physical appearance of cables from the equation, the alleged audible differences evaporate.

Regards,

I applaud your honesty sir. It's greatly appreciated.

It has to be said at least once a year i think.
Is that what we are up to?
One cable discussion a year?
Hmm, maybe i should be turning the page on my calendar more often than once every other holiday.

In reply to:

---

A rule of thumb has been to spend about 5-10% of your system cost on cabling

---

And do you know who came up with that rule of thumb? Cable manufacturers.

It reminds me of deBeer's guideline for how much to spend on an engagement ring: just 2 months salary. (I admit I fell for this one -- but she loved it, and look where I am today. )

(sigh)
Cable manufacturers are not where I get my information. They will tell you that some people spend up to 50% of their system cost on cables; now that is ridiculous.

In fact, I think spending obscene amounts of money on stereo equipment is foolish to start with. Plenty of people who buy $20 radios think they have great sound. Plenty of people who buy HT-inabox think they have great sound. Plenty of people who buy Axiom think they have great sound. Plenty of people who have a $5000 turntable and $500 interconnects think they have great sound.

The only thing more foolish than investing all the money that we do into home theater equipment is convincing oneself that there is no difference. And the inability to hear the difference between two components does not prove anything. What you choose to believe in the absence of evidence is up to you and your ears.

The question is whether I am too open-minded or some of you are too close-minded. My cabling is cheaper than Axiom's stuff, yet I leave it up to my ears to decide in the future, not solely my intellect.

-Cooper

I hate jumping into these cable threads but this just stood out to me...

In reply to:

---

And the inability to hear the difference between two components does not prove anything.

---

If you can't hear a difference, and it's been pretty safely established that you can't measure a difference...what the hell is the difference? Seems pretty clear that if you can't measure it, and you can't hear it, then for all practical purposes, there is not difference.

Please note, I'm not saying there is or isn't but your argument made no sense.

I apologize for inducing that sigh.

I completely agree with your reasoning. There's a market level for everyone's tastes.

The placebo effect has been scientifically validated over and over again. If you believe cables make a difference, you're going to hear that difference -- thus the expense is justified. And hearing that difference strengthens the belief. It's a feedback loop that, in effect, reinforces the belief with each subsequent audition.

Science attempts to explain reality, but it neglects to take into account the power of the human mind to create its own reality.

The key here is who is listening. Many, many people claim to hear a difference in audio cables, myself included. If you can't hear a difference in audio equipment, then the upgrade is a waste of money.

Generally speaking, it is impossible to prove that "you can't measure a difference," but it is possible to prove that a certain group of people can consistently detect a difference. If I run 1,000 experiments trying to show that people can hear speaker cable differences, and none of them succeed, then I have proven nothing. Yet with a single successful experiment I could prove that at least some people could detect the difference.

This is purely a matter of statistical and scientific methodology, particularly regarding the "null hypothesis," and has nothing to do with speaker cables or audio equipment.

-Cooper

Personally, I'm offended when people say that, "Well, you can't hear the difference, so don't spend the money." I wasin an audio place once, and said I didn't realy like the Paradigm Studio 100s, that I didn't find them to be much better than the Monitor 9s (not back to back listening, but the 100s just didn't impress me. Sorry). And the dude said in a snotty tone of voice, "Well, then, I guess you should just get the nines." And looked at me funny. I'm not saying that you're acting like that, but it did remind me of this experience. Just 'cause you think you can hear something I can't, doesn't mean that your ears are better or that you are more in tune with the spheres.

Offense is in the eye of the offended.

In reply to:

---

If I run 1,000 experiments trying to show that people can hear speaker cable differences, and none of them succeed, then I have proven nothing. Yet with a single successful experiment I could prove that at least some people could detect the difference.

---

This is an incorrect conclusion to make about experimental theory and is a commonly made mistake.
The 5% or less (1% depending on the alpha of the experiment) is not proof that those who fall into this category can detect anything. This is also interpreted as random chance anomalies often called outliers.
Out of 1000 people tested, it should be expected that 5% (or less or more) people may randomly select the 'correct' choices to pass the test. This doesn't mean they actually knew the answers.

And defense is in the other eyeball of the defended Peter.

Just don't cross your eyes or they're liable to annihilate.

Hey, I didn't say I was offended here. I was just pointing out that that's a slippery slope of an argument.

Hey Chess,

Long time no debate . Well you are right that my use of the word "proof" is not very accurate. Technically we're just talking about statistics and probabilities, and the alpha of the experiment determines how certain you are of the result. There is no experimental result with a probability of 1.

But the fact remains that those 1,000 experiments that showed no difference, even with a loose 95% confidence interval, provide less evidence than a single experiment that succeeds at the 95% confidence interval. The former 1,000 experiments provide no statistical evidence at the 95% level, whereas the latter experiment, which may be done on just one person, would provide a statistically significant difference. If you don't trust the results, then run it again. Try different self-proclaimed audiophiles who all claim to hear the difference. It will be a weak conclusion to draw if only backed by a single experiment, but you will have evidence nonetheless.

-Cooper

Cooper, it has been awhile.
I've been on hiatus the past 4 months deep in journal paper hell. I'm still there but for some unknown reason, spending more time on the forums.
Perhaps it is because i'm in such a fluent writing mode on a day to day basis.

In reply to:

---

But the fact remains that those 1,000 experiments that showed no difference, even with a loose 95% confidence interval, provide less evidence than a single experiment that succeeds at the 95% confidence interval.

---

This again comes back to how you interpret the experimental design. Many years ago there was an experiment on cold fusion producing power in a near 4:1 ratio. When this highly touted and successful experiment was UNsuccessfully re-created by at least 3 other labs, scientists disbelieved the first experiment.
Do you think that single successful experiment still provided more "proof" (more evidence) than those other 3?

Many experiments are done with single trials only, although in theoretical terms, no proper experimental design should follow such a protocol. However, in the case of the audio 'differences', as Alan has mentioned and many others have prescribed towards, tests have been done with very trained individuals more than just once over x number of years (Alan may fill in the gaps).
There comes a point where you trust that data as fact and quit second guessing. We could continue to test every week, every one and inevitably, we will still come across those instances where someone guesses correctly providing the 'positive' proof that you allude to.
However, that positive proof is well outweighed by the negative side (for lack of a better contrast in words) and it should be written off as chance, not proof that something still does exist. The same person would have to correctly guess differences, in multiple tests, multiple times consistently in a well controlled environment. (I added the last part b/c i have read about 'group' tests that were done and some miraculous individual did just that. However there was no information regarding the controls of the experiment so as far as we al know, there could have been a sighted flaw, something audible in switching that they figured out or even a hoax by a hosting company to show that 'proof' of their units are better because xx could hear.....)

If any theory of stats holds true, the point of conclusion must be reached and as far as i've seen and heard, it has been reached in regards to things like differences in cable sound.
I do believe that alot of ppl who enjoy audio have not had the chance to even know such data or material exists and again as Alan pointed out, even when put into a published format, masses of companies, and i imagine even hardcore (closed minded perhaps) audiophiles/audiophreaks turned their backs and would not even bother to give the material a second read.
It was refuted before it was even considered.

It is almost like Bush saying that global warming is not occurring because there is no proof for it 100%. Weight of evidence is the term that holds alot of water nowadays. and i hope to god that politicians start believing the weight of evidence sooner than later or the dumbasses are going to fry us all.
Did i just go off on another tangent there?

In reply to:

---

so they might roll off the highs a bit early

---

How on earth can a cable "roll off the highs"? I can buy that a cheap 18 guage cable may suffer signal loss or be subject to interference, but how can a length of copper wire selectively filter certain frequencies?

I will continue to use generic 12 guage speaker wire ($0.25/ft.) until somebody can show me convincing evidence that anything else outperforms it.

Did anybody see "Dateline" (or some other similar show) last night where they showed a clip of some people playing with a basketball? Anyway, they told viewers to count the number of passes made in the clip, and hardly anybody noticed the presence of a guy in a gorilla suit who walked through the frame. Just goes to show that our expectations can radically alter our perceptions. Cooper, it is equally possible that your expectation that your new speaker wire would be an improvement caused you to, in fact, perceive an improvement.

Mark

Actually, a cable CAN roll off highs.

This would never be an issue with speaker cables, but could happen in line level connections with small amounts of current. Every cable acts as a capacitor, just in different degrees. A capacitor, when used in audio applications, rolls off the high end.

Now the debate could be just what threshold of cable capacitance is audible...

Hey Chess,

I hope your papers go along well! It's tough to argue with a man who likes Guinness, so I'll try to make this brief.

The intention of the cold fusion researchers was to recreate the process. One "successful" experiment leads to the hope that it can be reproduced. If it cannot be done, then the reason is typically pinned down to a particular mistake in the original experiment, or to outright fraud.

This is not the case with audio cables. Cable skeptics dismiss all the witnesses' claims because "they wanted to hear it." Audio cables were never claimed to be the silver bullet, the cold fusion, of the audio world, so there's no way to contradict it with experiments. It's simply too well-established in most audiophile circles, contentious though it may be, to be dismissed so easily.

True snake-oil products tend to disappear after awhile, especially on the high end. After all, do you really think people enjoy spending thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars on audio equipment if they aren't getting a real benefit? And there are satisfied audiophiles going on for decades now. I think the main issue here is that people tend to see expensive products as absurd when they can't afford them. There are plenty of cars that will out-accelerate a Ferrari for a fraction of the price, but so what? What about how it sounds when you start up a V12, what about how the leather feels against your skin, what about how it feels to grip the wheel through a decreasing-radius on ramp while easing on the throttle? Quantify that.

In the meantime I will try to find more objective information online for you non-believers. Here's an interesting, though not terribly well-written, article about cable theory posted by some audio dealer:
cable theory

-Cooper

The article is pure, unadulterated gobbledygook. Five pages of assertions (such as the laughable "all cables are directional"), without a single measurement to back up the assertions.

Your Ferarri analogy works against you. Say you had a Ferarri and another, cheaper, sportscar with identical acceleration, handling, suspension, seat, and engine noise. A blindfolded passenger could not tell the difference between the two vehicles. It is only an unblinded driver or passenger who can tell the difference. It is the cachet of "Ferarri" that gives the driver the percieved increased driving enjoyment.

Same with cables. A blinded listener cannot tell the difference between 12 guage zip cord and expensive speaker cables. Results here. It is only the unblinded listener who percieves the improvement with expensive cables. If you believe an expensive cable is going to sound better than a cheap one, then it will.

Until I see evidence that blinded listeners can differentiate between cheap and expensive cables, I will consider expensive cables to be "snake oil"

Mark

Re: Audio Quest

Read the article - the next metal they should try is unobtainium ...