REFERENCES-SPEAKER CABLES

Speaker cable development, over the last 35 years, has been disappointing, especially when you consider how many different cable marketers there have been and how much money some audiophiles have been prepared to spend to own the highest quality. To prove that assertion, it is only in 2004 that I finally heard a speaker wire that can outperform my reference from the late 1970’s and, even then, not in all circumstances.

Some audio magazines have claimed that every cable sounds exactly the same. They're wrong, but cable differences are almost always grossly overstated in the magazines that do claim and report the sonic differences. They may still be an avenue to achieve the performance you are looking for, and are indispensable if the ultimate goal is to reach the highest levels of music reproduction in the home.

It is also sadly true that many speaker cables, particularly the ultra-expensive, are obscenely overpriced.

The so-called "mainstream" audio magazines will never tell you this because not only do the cable companies spend really "big bucks" advertising with them, they also give the 'reviewers' themselves their cables for free. Why not, the cable companies typically pay only 4% (or even less!) of the retail list price for them from the actual cable manufacturers. Markups in the (legitimate) audio industry should never have become comparable to those in the illegal drug business. The fact that this has actually occurred is a sad reflection on both the audio press and (mindless) audiophiles.

For a more in-depth discussion of "the relationships" between the Audio Magazines and the cable "manufacturers", and its inevitable results, please go to the essay "Underground" Audio Magazines, and check out the section entitled: Audio Cables-The Ultimate Test of Integrity.

In early 2020, Coincident came out with their next-generation version of the (Class A) Statement Speaker Cable (2016), using the designation; "Mk. II". There has also been a relatively small price increase for the II.
Example: 6' "Original" Statement Pair = $ 2,000.
6' Statement Mk. II Pair = $ 2,250
According to Coincident, the entire price increase is basically just covering the extra cost of production.

I've had a 4' pair of the Mk. II for months now. I delayed my review until I felt confident that they were fully broken-in. This break-in process is now long completed and, even better, so are all the direct comparisons of the Mk. II with its two main competitors.
Here are the details, starting with the comparison protocols.

I had over 500 hours of break-in time on the Mk. II cables before making the comparisons. In retrospect, the performance of the Mk. II cables "plateaued" closer to around 400 hours, but I needed to be certain before I moved on. There were two additional issues which also had to be dealt with to ensure that the comparisons were fair:
1. I also had to play the Original Statement speaker cables for a number of hours as well, to make certain that they were at their best.
2. Because my system is tri-amped (it uses the self-powered Acapella Ion super-tweeters), I had to remove the super-tweeters and, once again, familiarize myself with my system without them. This process took much more time (two months) than I had originally planned for. (If I didn't remove the super-tweeters, the cable comparisons would have effectively only been in the midrange frequencies, which is obviously unacceptable.)
Further...
3. I only used my digital source for the comparisons, due to its critically important ability to repeat the same source, multiple times, without any sonic compromises.
4. Unlike all the other direct signal cable comparisons I've made in the last 20 years, and mainly because of the pandemic, I had no "associates" assisting me during any of the tests.
5. The Original Statement cable was 1 meter in length, while the Mk. II was 4' in length (or 8" longer), a slight disadvantage.
Here are the results of the comparisons...

For the most important and revealing comparisons - These descriptions are basically my contemporaneous listening notes with some required edits for clarity:

Jazz CD - The Mk. II has greater precision and better separation. It is cleaner, tighter, a touch more immediate, also better clarified and more delicate. It is also less homogeneous when the music becomes loud.

Medieval Music CD - The decays and echoes are more noticeable. There is better image focus. In all, the "timing" of the Mk. II is improved, which may be the key to its superior performance. It's also more cohesive and more natural at ultra-low volume levels.

Symphonic Music CD - Biggest difference is there is less deterioration at high volume levels, which was also noticed earlier with the Jazz CD.

Early Music SACD - More immediate and natural. The harmonics are better timed. There is also a little more inner detail.

Overall, and not surprisingly, the Mk. II's sonic improvements were most easily noticed with the better recordings in my collection. Recordings that were multi-dubbed and/or generally obscure, basically sounded very similar, or even the same. The various improvements listed above, while encompassing, were not "dramatic", individually or cumulatively (see below).

However, I also found that I appreciated the Mk. II, to an ever increasing degree, over the long-term. I believe that this positive personal reaction was due to the reduction of listening fatigue, which is almost always a satisfying bonus when artificial (and previously unrecognized) sonic artifacts are suddenly absent. What are the actual practical advantages of a "reduction in listening fatigue"? Simple Answer - Listening for 3 or 4 hours instead of 2 hours, and with greater enjoyment as well. In short, a reduction of "negatives" can be just as important as an addition in "positives".

I also played the Polk cables enough hours to make certain that they were at their best. My Polk cables are 3' in length, which is 12" shorter than the Mk. II cables (an obvious technical advantage for the Polk, which I could not address). I listened to the exact same music as above, and in some cases going back and forth several times with the same CD/SACD cut, to make as certain as possible that my descriptions were consistent with what I was hearing.
The Results - The Polk was still a touch faster and more precise, while the Mk. II had more natural body, harmonics and weight. However, while all these sonic differences were relatively small, the Mk. II's performance advantages were also relatively larger in scale and, subsequently, more easily noticeable.

The Statement Mk. II has further blurred the Polk's unique sonic advantages to the point that they are now subtle on even the most revealing (CD/SACD) recordings. Further, and importantly, these advantages are less noticeable than the Mk. II's own sonic advantages. In short, there are now less sonic reasons to prefer the Polk cables than ever before, though some Polk fans may still favor it in certain circumstances, and with specific music in mind.

A Second Round of Comparisons, conducted a year later, this time with an updated speaker system and a new analogue source...

This time (January/February 2022) I used only an analogue source; the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma 4Point, with the ZYX UNIverse Premium Cartridge. Further, I also had an associate with me for confirmation. The results of this experiment were quite easy to observe: The Polk's well-known sonic strengths and advantages, as I've described above (and for the prior 3 decades for that matter), were noticeably increased when directly compared to the Statement II. So, where did I end up? The Coincident is still superior in the lower frequencies, around equal in the lowest part of the midrange, while the Polk is superior in the remaining midrange and higher frequencies. Ergo, the Statement II is currently used with the PRE II subwoofers (see "Comparison 4" below) while the Polk is used with the PRE II monitors.

This time (January/February 2022, and unlike the previous 3 comparisons above) the comparison was made using the cables on the PRE II Subwoofers. The Results - The II was slightly superior in definition and control, plus it captured more of the instrumental and recording space. While I heard no improvement in the II's frequency range, there is more intensity in its impact. These sonic improvements were not as noticeable as with the monitors, but this was to be expected as less than 3 musical octaves were at issue with the subwoofers. However, these sonic improvements were still welcomed because they further reduced the overall performance gap between the PRE II monitors and the subwoofers (which can never be entirely eliminated). The Bottom Line - The Statement MK. IIs are the finest speaker cables I've ever heard in the bass frequencies.

The Mk. II's main strength, and most important quality, is its lack of any obvious sonic weaknesses. In short - More so than any other cable I've experienced, the Mk. II does not draw attention to itself, no matter what the musical/technical challenges it confronts, at any frequency, thus making it easier for the listener to then fully appreciate and enjoy the music.

However, the Polk speaker cables (at their best) still have some important sonic advantages, especially in what most serious audiophiles consider the two most important frequency ranges. This is most easily noticeable with superior musical sources, which allow you to also truly appreciate the full extent of their respective sonic strengths. This is the reason why I currently (2022) use both speaker cables in my system.

In the end, the Mk. II may not be a "dramatic advancement" in speaker cables, at least from my personal experience and perspective. Why my reluctance to bestow this particular laurel? Consistency - From my "personal perspective", "dramatic" is a laudatory term I (purposely) rarely use to describe any "signal" cables. In fact, I've only used it twice, and only for interconnects (one of them was from Coincident), in the last 20 years. As for speaker cables, here are the reasons and specifics that bound me...

While writing this review, I couldn't help contemplate that the Polk cable has now been available for around 40 years and, after all that time, it is still not "embarrassed" by the latest speaker cable designs (though only when the Polk is relatively short and correctly configured!). In fact, as I wrote above, it is still superior, depending on the musical source and the sonic priorities of the listener. So, from a decades long perspective, what does this all mean for "The Big (Speaker Cable) Picture"?

I believe it means that there will never be a second "dramatic advancement" in speaker cable design. The first "dramatic advancement" (and still the only one, for me) was, obviously, the Polk.
The Details - 35 years ago, we directly compared the Polk to the then (supposedly) "state of the art" MIT speaker cable. (Ironically, the "we" was myself and Israel Blume, the designer of the Statement Mk. II.) The Results - Which shocked both of us - The Polk dramatically destroyed the MIT.

Since then (1985), I've heard a number of (relative) sonic advancements in speaker cables, but none of them were even close to dramatic in degree. Accordingly, I now seriously doubt that any dramatic degree of sonic improvement, in contemporary speaker cables, is even technically possible. If it was possible, I believe it would have happened many years ago. There will be future advancements as well, as in the past, but just not dramatic in nature. So, how does this past history relate to the present sonic achievements of the Statement Mk. II, which I described above...

Ultimately, I strongly believe that any noticeable sonic advancement, especially in a mature technology such as speaker cables, is always a worthy audio development, and also an achievement which deserves some recognition.

Picture Two - Close-Up of Above (Mk. II, Top, is Thinner)
Note: My Statement II cables lack the the proper "II" labels. The "II" labels weren't yet printed when the cables were shipped.

This speaker wire (6 or 8 cables in parallel) is superior to every other cable I have compared it with, at all prices points, for over 30 years now. It was even far superior to the $15,000, top-of-the-line Kimber at the Las Vegas CES show some years ago.

The Polk is extremely transparent, lucid, clean and extended in the highs. Accordingly, it is not a good match for those audiophiles looking for something "euphonic" to compliment digital or solid-state sound. It is the most revealing cable I have ever heard and it must be used in parallel or else it will sound noticeably "lean" on low-impedance, or even average impedance, speakers. For same actual examples...

Based on our collective, long-term experiences, for a standard 6' length, eight cables in parallel will work with everything, and four cables with most speakers*. The rule is simple; The overall length must be as short as possible, with the added benefit that less cables (in parallel) are required at the same time (my own Polk cables, since 2008, are 3' long, with 6 cables in parallel).

The Polk does have one noticeable weakness; its bass transmission is not quite the equal of some of its rivals in both the areas of weight and impact, but its bass definition is still as good as anything made even today. Even more relevant, the Polk is now the finest speaker cable in only ultra-pure, minimalist systems (such as my own Reference System). The Coincident Extreme speaker cable, see below, has proven to be as good, or superior, in more typical systems, meaning those that are using push-pull amplification (and, I assume, multiple speaker drivers).

Polk Speakers did not manufacture this cable. It was designed and manufactured by a cable company in Japan (the name is unknown). Polk marketed it at the time as an alternative to the early Fulton cables (see below). According to an inside source, they were aware of what they had, the best speaker cables around, but they marketed it in the wrong manner. They sold it in single pairs and in very long lengths. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the correct method for optimizing its unequalled potential.

If that wasn't enough, all of the reviewers at the time, with one notable exception, dismissed this cable as inferior, if not actually dangerous to use (with transistor amplifiers of the time). This all occurred when there was the initial explosion of cable companies back in the early 1980s. The unsurprising result: The Polk was quickly forgotten by almost everyone.

There are no "secrets" or "magic" behind the unprecedented performance of this cable. Polk simply has the lowest inductance of any cable ever made, which means it is the "fastest" cable, and it is also the cable with the most extended high frequencies.

The actual wire is very fine and pure, and it is very well damped on both its inside and outside by polyethylene. Both the resistance and capacitance are high. The resistance can be easily reduced by both shortening the cable and also running them in parallel. The high capacitance is not a problem for tube amplifiers, but it may be a serious problem for unstable (meaning usually older) transistor models.

The Polk is round* and about the same diameter as a common interconnect. Through the clear outer plastic, you can see the very fine green and copper wires, bundled together, and intertwined (overlapped) with each other.

(*There is also a flat version of the Polk. The flat Polk is not quite as good as the round version, but it is still noticeably superior to most other speaker cables, at any price.)

The reason there is not a "short circuit", despite the numerous overlaps, is because every single wire has a clear insulation around it, which must be burnt off to make the required connections to the amplifier and speakers.

Polk was never manufactured and/or marketed in its optimum form. It must be built using the original, raw, single-run cables. This will not be a simple, "fun" project. It is more accurately described as a true challenge, as I will now explain in more detail:

Caveats: The Polk is very tedious, difficult and even dangerous to build and terminate properly:

1. All the paralleled cables must be exactly the same length, or you lose focus.

2. All the "greens" must be in parallel together, and so must all the "coppers", never both green and copper "runs" of the same cable.

3. All the green and copper individual wires and "bundles" must be kept totally separated from each other or there will be a "short" (use a voltmeter to verify this).

4. A very high temperature soldering iron or solder pot is required to remove the clear insulation on each tiny strand.

6. The paralleled cables should be in as intimate contact as possible, to reduce both micro-vibrations and inductance.

Further- Amazingly, the Polk cables were made out of copper. Only one audio reviewer heard (and measured) the potential of this cable when it was available, brand new, 30 years ago; Peter Moncrieff of International Audio Review. Here is part of what he wrote in IAR Issue No #9:

"If only Polk's resistance were lower, it would be a virtually perfect speaker cable...The beautifully flat error curve of Polk suggests a plan for creating the virtually perfect cable: run many Polks in parallel."

I, and a few of my associates, just followed Peter Moncrieff's theoretical "plan", and it actually worked. That's why it is still in Class A after all these years.

Further (11/05)- This Japanese designed and manufactured speaker cable, only marketed by Polk in North America, was also sold in Europe by another name. This was unknown to me until I received this e-mail from a reader:

"Here in Norway, the Polk Cobra (speaker cable) was sold under the name Monitor Audio. I bought a pair of Polk Cobra on ebay last year, and they are identical to the Monitor Audio I have. I bought the Monitor Audio back in the early eighties."

Personal Note- Needless to say, my description for the Polk Speaker Cable now also applies to the equivalent Monitor Audio speaker cable, and so do all the respective caveats and warnings.

These pictures will allow clear identification and should also clarify my detailed termination instructions, already posted above. Many people have asked me for these pictures over the years, and they now finally exist:

1. My Current Reference Speaker Cables: They are 3' in length and have 6 Polk cables in parallel

Important- Everything posted below was written before the most recent evaluation of the two current Class A (Upper) Speaker Cables

The speaker cable comparisons of the Coincident Statement with my long-time reference, the Polk, have finally been completed (in 2019). There were three veteran listeners involved with the A/B tests (including myself), and the Statement cables had over 600 hours of play time on them, though I heard no further sonic improvements, even subtle, after around 500 hours or so. So, what were the results?

There was no definitive "winner". Both speaker cables were outstanding overall, and both had advantages/disadvantages when compared to the other. What a serious listener would prefer will depend on a number of factors, so the choice between them is complex. Here are the details that the three of us agree on:

The Statement cables are a little more "natural", harmonically rich and full-bodied (more "complete"), while the Polk is, to a slightly greater degree, faster, more precise and with greater detail (more "accurate"). However, it must be stressed that both cables are still excellent even in those areas where they are at a disadvantage, so there is no obvious sonic "weak-link" for either cable. This means a final preference will come down to several critical factors, with at least one (though probably two or more) of the factors relevant, depending on the listener and the system:

1. System Interaction - The requirements of the existing system, either to enhance, or hide, a sonic paramater(s), may be the deciding factor.

2. Musical Preferences - Some forms of music may be subjectively enhanced by one cable to a greater degree than the other.

3. Personal Sonic Preferences (or Priorities) - Which is obviously always critically important, and even...

4. Specific Recordings (and even cuts) - Even after a final choice is made, it's still possible, if not probable, that this preference can change depending on the specific recording being played, and even the different cuts of that recording.

It's not surprising that, based on the above observations, my personal choice was extremely difficult. In fact, out of curiosity, and admittedly some frustration, I actually played both the Polk and Statement cables simultaneously (meaning in parallel), to discover if I could combine their strengths, and mitigate their "weaknesses", at the same time. Unfortunately, this (admittedly desperate) experiment did NOT work. The actual outcome of the Polk/Statement Combo was sonic "confusion", like two people talking over each other at the same time.

This failure meant that I was now forced to choose between them. Fortunately, I could console myself with the realization that the sonic differences, in the end, were so minor, that I could either choose the Statement, and not miss the Polk or, alternatively, choose the Polk, and not miss the Statement (though only after a short period "to forget", in either instance). So, after all that, what speaker cable am I using, for now?

I am using the Coincident Statement, but I'm keeping the Polk! I feel, for now, that the Statement is the slightly better choice for most of my music, most of the time*, and for my current tri-amped system (where the ion super tweeters obviate the Polk's advantage in the extreme high frequencies). Finally, for the record, one of the other "veteran listeners" also preferred the Statement, while the other veteran listener preferred the Polk, so it was a "split decision" in favor of the Statement.

*I listen to the Pure Reference Extreme monitors solo most of the time (with the subwoofers off). The Statement cables extend lower in the bass than the Polk, so the monitors sound more full-range with them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I promised when I started this cable survey, back in 2016, that I would make an attempt at identifying "the most important cable", if that was possible. Well, after numerous comparisons, I have come to a conclusion that I have confidence in.

Assuming these important conditions are met:

1. A high-resolution system, which exposes a maximum of differences;
2. No disqualifying impedance, or other system, mismatches between the cable contenders;
3. Short cables used for every connection, 1 meter (or less) and a maximum of 2 meters.

By following these three conditions, no cable has an advantage/disadvantage, or is inherently more important, prior to the comparison, and any sonic differences should be noticeable. So, which cable is it?

Interconnects. Why? They are the only audio cable we have experienced, signal or power, that can provide a "dramatic" sonic improvement, though this is rare. Further, in general, the sonic differences between various interconnects are the most easily noticeable, and thus the most consequential in the long run.

This cable did what no other speaker cable has done in the last 25 years; it outperformed the Polk Speaker Cable, head to head, and it was my own (8') Polk cable that it beat out, so there was no chance of an inferior pair creating a false outcome. In the past, the Polk, my own Polk, has always been better than any speaker cable I've compared it with, no matter what the system, no matter how "cold" the Polk was, literally or figuratively, no matter what music was being played. This time it wasn't better.

I was too shocked to remember all the details, but the Polk sounded murky, veiled and compressed by comparison. This incident happened in June 2004, on one of my trips to Toronto, my former home for decades. Since this was highly unexpected, I decided to make some more direct comparisons, and with other experienced listeners present.

I then borrowed a pair of these new "Extreme" speaker cables to use in my own system, in Florida. I heard them for a while alone, and then with one of my associates. We, of course, made another direct comparison with my own (reference) Polk Cables. The results were surprising (and confusing to me at the time), because they directly contradicted the results I had heard earlier in Toronto. I even delayed posting my/our observations until I could make some sort of consistent and rational sense to them. After an investigation, reconstruction and analysis of all the listening comparisons, I feel I now know and understand what happened, and why.

To cut to the ending; the initial comparisons between the two speaker cables in Toronto were made with a (highly modified) push-pull pentode based tube amplifier (Stromberg-Carlson AP-55). The comparisons in my own system were with a (highly-modified) Single Ended Triode amplifier (Golden Tube 300B). The Coincident Extreme was superior in the former comparison, while the Polk was superior in the latter comparison (it had more inner detail and low-level information, better focus and less homogenization). The Coincident Extreme, in both comparisons however, sounded louder and more "upfront", and it also had superior bass impact and weight.

Why the differences? Just as I discussed in detail with the AP55 versus the Coincident MP 300B amplifiers, the inherent sonic problems of all push-pull amplifiers, including even the finest using tubes, can and will obscure the subtle, rare and most important qualities of the finest software and other hardware, and, in this instance, speaker cables. This has now become an "Audio Truth" to me, based strictly on my (our) experiences. While I've long "believed" in it as a "working theory", my two 2004 ("ice water in your face") experiences have made it into a "Basic Rule", which is quite different.

I believe the Coincident Extreme will outperform the Polk, and every other speaker cable that I've heard, in most systems. Plus it is actually available new, which means it can be custom terminated at optimum lengths. It is relatively expensive, but it's far from "crazy priced" ($ 1,695 for an 8' Pair). It's flexible and appears thinner than average, but this is only because Israel Blume, the owner/designer, decided to eliminate all the costly (in money and sonics) "filler" that is typically added to the actual transmission cable. Why then include the filler in the first place? Because many audiophiles also need to impress their eyes when they purchase their components, including (maybe even especially) their cables.

What about the Polk? Why do I still have it in Class A? Because the Polk, when heard at its absolute best, which means with "all-out", ultra-purist, minimalist systems, is still the finest overall speaker cable that I've heard. I realize that hearing it at its best is somewhat difficult to accomplish, but then this entire website is dedicated to all-out and "extreme" measures to reach the highest possible levels of music reproduction, regardless of the inevitable impracticalities.

Further, the Polk takes considerable time, effort and resources to find and build. The Coincident Extreme has now converted the Polk into a fringe cable for serious "purists" (such as myself) and dedicated DIY hobbyists. Actually, and ironically, it's the Polk itself that is now "Extreme", in more than one sense of that word.

WIREWORLD GOLD & SILVER ECLIPSE III- These were among the finest speaker cables I know of manufactured in the late 1990s. The Silver is exactly one half of the Gold. Unfortunately, both are a lot of money, especially the Gold, which is double the price of the Silver. They are also very stiff and difficult to work with, but that is only an issue if you are constantly changing components or positions. Considering it took 20 years to even approach the reference cable (Polk), I don’t have much hope for improvement in the future.

These are both silver cables and with pure silver connectors. This cable is very accurate and revealing and it is not for audiophiles who are looking for a "pleasant" or "forgiving" sound. The Polk cables above are even more revealing, have a quieter, darker background and a more focused sound. The Wireworld cables are more "up-front" and "exciting" to listen to than the Polks, and they also have superior bass reproduction. So, some listeners might still prefer them overall to the Polks.

Note- I have not directly compared these cables to the much less expensive Coincident Extreme cables above.

GOERTZ SILVER (TOP OF THE LINE)- This cable is very fast, extended, transparent and clean. It also has very low inductance and high capacitance like the Polk. Some amplifiers may have problems with these cables. Like the Polk, this is also very neutral and revealing, and not recommended for euphonic filtering. I haven't heard their latest models.

COINCIDENT TRS- This is the "Reference" cable that Coincident claimed was even better, overall, than the Polk. (Israel Blume of Coincident agrees with me that the Polk has been superior to all the other speaker cables until this time, including his own original CST 1, just below.) It is around double the price of their original (CST) model, $ 1,100 for an 8' pair.

I have heard this new Coincident TRS cable in my own system, after a thorough break-in, and it is a noticeable improvement over the original CST 1. It has a larger, more focused and detailed sound and it is also more dynamic and upfront.

However, it is not as good as the Polk in the most important areas of music reproduction, low-level information, ultimate transparency etc. It is better in bass impact, and it is also a little more "upfront", which is probably caused by its lower resistance. Two other experienced (and objective) listeners agreed with this assessment.

I was not able to directly compare the TRS to the other Class B cables above, but the differences, from memory, will be similar to those of the CST 1, though the disadvantages will be reduced and its strengths enhanced.

COINCIDENT CST 1- This well-made cable is in some ways competitive to those above, but it is far less expensive. It is superior to the other Class C cables, though the others may prove more desirable in system matching, and the inexpensive Goertz may still have more high-frequency extension and detail.

It is made out of 6-Nine copper. This cable is $ 600 (US) for an 8' pair. Its main strengths are its focus, smoothness and powerful bass transmission, but it doesn't have the same sense of "immediacy" or "aliveness" as either the best Wireworlds or the Goertz, in Class B. The new TRS is also noticeably superior, though they have some common "family" traits, as can be expected.

This cable, and the more "all-out" and expensive version of it (the Reference), appear to work particularly well with Coincident's own speakers, which shouldn't be surprising.

WIREWORLD POLARIS & EQUINOX III- These cables are similar in configuration to the Eclipse series above, but use copper and a lesser quality dielectric. They are still very neutral and revealing, but they don’t disappear or have their siblings’ unique immediate and "alive" qualities. These cables are also not recommended for those who are looking for a particular sound that complements some problem with their system.

CARDAS NEUTRAL REFERENCE & HEXLINK FAMILY- These cables (there are a few different models) are basically neutral but still forgiving. They are slightly warmer and more full-bodied than pure neutral, like the Magus/Luminescence preamplifiers. The recent Neutral Reference has the least of these qualities. These are recommended for those who want to complement digital or solid state problems, or for those who prefer a warmer than pure neutral sound.

GOERTZ (LOWER PRICED)- These "ribbon" cables are excellent performers. This includes the entire copper series and the less expensive (narrower) of the silver series. They sound similar to the Polk, but lack the inner detail. However, these are available and aren’t "crazy money".

CAVEAT: Some amplifiers have stability problems with these cables, mainly because of their higher than average capacitance.

FULTON- These cables, consisting of two models, "Brown" and "Gold", were very popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact, I was a dealer for them for a while. As far as I know, they were the first "audiophile" speaker cables, so they actually created this new "component" category. Unfortunately, they were never that good and now they are obsolete.

Basically, they were extra thick, copper, lamp cord wire, similar to the later standard Monster cable, but with silver plating. The Brown was 12 or 10 gauge, while the (extremely stiff and super thick) Gold, was either 6 or 4 gauge. They had both a high inductance and a bright sound. They did have good bass because of their low resistance, especially the Gold, which is still a good choice as a dedicated subwoofer cable. However, other than for that one very specific application, both cables are now obsolete and should be avoided.

CAVEAT-Please be advised that the readers’ letters posted on this site are solely the opinion of that reader and may not necessarily represent or reflect the opinions of Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. They are posted because they may be edifying, thought provoking or entertaining.

ANTI-CABLE SPEAKER CABLES- I don't have any direct experience with these very reasonably priced cables but, fortunately, a veteran reader has come to the rescue. He compared their cable to the original Coincident CST 1 speaker cable, which, while more expensive, is a cable I've always considered excellent value for the money. Here's his letter, with only minor editing:

"I'm done. I repeated the A/B three times and re-arranged the system within our living room to enhance the sonics (to the detriment of my wife's preferred asthetics) to ensure I got things right... I only assessed the ACs wound at approximately 1 twist per 1.5"; as they come with fully separate + and - wires per channel; I can't state categorically that I had them perfectly optimized, although some AA posts seemed to suggest that I had.

This comparison has proven to be very frustrating. The two speaker cables are like night and day - each one's strengths cast a glaring spotlight on the other's weaknesses. Listening to one implies being dissatisfied with the other. The ACs are more harmonically complete, resulting in a richer sound, and cast what I felt was a more palpable soundstage. I felt they also had more weight in the bass region (think of the 'slam' of the low registers on a grand piano) and made the CST1s seemed pronouncely rolled off at the higher frequencies, which was very evident on cymbals. The CST 1s excelled at speed, precision and organization. They had better inner detail, even though they seemed to veil the music slightly in the harmonic richness sense, which allowed subtle nuances of the musician to perceived.

For low-level information retreival, here's what I've observed:
1. The harmonics that identify instruments and enables them to sound natural or "musical"; **ACs SUPERIOR**
2. The decay of the individual notes and their harmonics; **I'M NOT POSITIVE, BUT I'D HAVE THE CST1s AHEAD HERE EXCEPT FOR THE HIGH FREQUENCIES **
3. The subtle, instantaneous shifts of dynamics and their intensity and emphasis (also known as micro-dynamics and dynamic shading) enabling musical "expression" to be sensed, heard and felt; **DEFINITELY THE CST1s WERE SUPERIOR**
4. The sense of ambience and space, allowing the listener to both hear and be "there"; **ACs SUPERIOR**
5. The complexity and separation, or absence of homogenization, of all of the above, reducing "boredom" and "listener fatigue"; **CST1s SUPERIOR IN SONIC HOMOGENIZATION (I.E. FROM THE SAME INSTRUMENT) - ACs SUPERIOR IN SPATIAL HOMOGENIZATION, SUCH AS SEPARATING SIMON & GARFUNKEL SINGING INTO THE SAME MIC**
6. and the sense of both continuity and a continual and consistent presence, which has also been described by others as "continuousness". **I DON'T THINK I HAVE A REFINED ENOUGH EAR TO DETERMINE THIS ONE - CERTAINLY NOTHING 'JUMPED OUT AT ME' TO INDICATE ONE WAS SUPERIOR HERE**

If I was to describe this succinctly, I would say the CST 1s were more immediate as they allowed an emotional and cerebral connection with the musician that eluded the ACs, but the ACs were more musical in that they better portrayed the harmonic richness and acoustic splendor of acoustic instruments. Based upon your audio philosophy, I'd put the CST 1s ahead in absolute terms. From the Class C 'bang for the buck' perspective (i.e. cost is a factor), I'm not certain what to say. 6' CST 1s are $495 US new and ~$300 used on Audiogon; my new ACs were $60 US. Having heard both, I certainly wouldn't buy the CST1s new, as I would go AC and put the $400 difference in cable price towards a better component, NOS tubes or in the bank to save towards a higher class cable (i.e. Class B Coincident TRS). At the used price for the CST 1s, I honestly can't say which is the better value, although the ACs give you quite a bit for $60 US; a $60 speaker cable shouldn't make me somewhat dissatisfied with my CST 1s.

I should also add that the ACs are stiff and somewhat awkward to work with being solid core. Their spades are narrow and somewhat flimsy (to be expected for the price), so binding post size must be specified when ordering. Lastly, for the 3rd A/B I defeated the pre portion of my integrated tube amp (easily the weak link in my system) and controlled the volume from both my digital and analog front ends. I hope this is of help. I further hope that what I've observed seems reasonable."

Personal Notes- This reader must be thanked for all the effort he made for this direct and pretty thorough "review". The Anti-cable speaker cables sound like a great buy to me, especially considering the increasingly ridiculous prices for many new cables. The Link to this company is in the Link File.

This letter, from an interested reader, provides some observations about a cable I heard many years ago. There's some very minor editing and my bold:

"Like most audiophiles, I have gone through all kinds of audio cables; maybe eight different kinds through the years, not counting power cables. I have heard an equal amount in other people’s systems. While not owning any very high priced cable (above $1k per meter) I have heard a few examples and generally thought they exaggerated detail retrieval. Your experience with the discontinued Polk cable got me thinking recently to try some Mogami cable, which I have used with recording gear, but never tried with an audio system.

Mogami wire is used in many professional recording studios. Anyway, I had Mogami interconnects constructed with Neutrik RCA connectors (the cost was about $50 for a 6 foot pair, with about $30 of that due to the premium connectors). The interconnects look inexpensive and are as flexible as a wet noodle. I also got a 10 foot run of Mogami speaker cables with spade connectors (about $100), which look more substantial, but are still fairly flexible. When I hooked these cables up, and played the first LP and CD, I felt like an audiofool for spending so much money on all the other more expensive cables. In addition to outstanding clarity and tonal balance, what impressed me most was the boundlessness of the sound. I was reminded of the Haitink/Philips recording of (Debussy's) Iberia that you mentioned in your Supreme Recordings, except that I was now hearing it to an increased extent with most of my records. The bass clarity and extension is also noteworthy.

I did notice a slight increased gentleness to treble transients. At first, I thought the cable had blunted these transients, but closer listening led me to conclude it was due to the removal of distortion, rather than loss of detail. These characteristics remained stable when I used the cables in each of my 3 systems, which is a first in my experience for a cable. In the past, my cables have had definite system interactions, and I never was able to use the same one for all types of systems. At these prices, folks don’t have to trust my opinions, but can try it for themselves. There is another widely used pro cable company called Canare. However, I do not recommend their cables for audio systems." (9/09)

A veteran reader has provided further information about his experiences with Mogami cable, which many audiophiles feel are some of the best values available today. Here it is, with my bold:

"...Only Mogami W3103 (2 conductor @ $2.80 p foot) or W3104 (4 conductor@ $5 p foot) speaker cable receives my highest recommendation. Their model number W3082 is half the price, but noticeably less transparent. At these prices why cut corners? These prices are for unterminated cables. Terminations are another $30 or 40 per cable. BTW, the recommended interconnects are model 2528, also cheap. I have found much less system dependency with these cables. I use them with all 3 of my systems that I described in a previous message. I find Redco a reliable vendor for sales and assembly of these cables." (01/12)

My experiences with these cables: what works and what does not.
Remember: The individual strands of these cables look thick with their insulation on. Once you remove insulation, you will be surprised to note that the copper strands are really thin (like fine wire).

Yes it works but it is very time consuming. I found that the best method was to pull a few strands at a time between two sheets of fine-grain sand paper. You have to keep turning the cables around so that all the enamel is scraped off by the sand paper. Very time consuming because of the large number of strands.
Mechanical methods that are not that effective are listed below.
"Scraping with metal file. The fine strands tend to break off.
"Using a sander/grinder. Even careful application of pressure and selection of soft grinding surfaces causes some cables to break off.
"Metal scraping tool. No good. Too many strands break off.
After removal of enamel, it is important to solder the exposed copper immediately. Please do remember that we are working with 30 year old copper wire. It is still useable due to the purity of the copper and the excellent protection of the enamel. Avoid exposure, as much as you can.

Not workable in real life.
"The intense heat of the enamel burning burns off the copper wire. Please note that the enamel thickness is much higher than the cable diameter. You end up with different lengths of burned up cable ends.
"To make it worse, the copper gets oxidized by the fire/heat.

Theoretically this is a good technique, but quite difficult in real life.
"The tight Litz braiding and the close fitting plastic sleeve has a tendency to absorb the solvent from the stripping chemical by capillary action. I found that even holding the cable vertically and dipping it into the stripping solution from above does not prevent capillary action. I destroyed 1 m of my cable trying this method.
"The copper quality (purity) may be compromised by the stripping solution.

Best of the four methods I have tried.
1. Use a high temperature solder pot (temperature about 400C)
2. Melt enough solder to be able to dip (about 1.5 cm deep) the required length of cable.
3. Wait till temperature reaches 400C-450C.
4. Dip the cut end of the cable in the melted solder and wait till the enamel burn off. You can see the white smoke, indicating the enamel is burned off. Takes only a few minutes if the solder is hot enough.
"See note on separating the cables by colour. Once separated twist them together lightly. This will make dipping them in solder easier.
"Do this in a well ventilated area or with an exhaust hood. This white gas is toxic. Otherwise wear a chemical grade face mask.
"Does not hold the wire with bare hands as you burn off the enamel. It can become very hot.
"Protect the rest of the wire from the extreme heat. I just wrap the cable with a thick layer of aluminium foil to conduct away the heat.
5. If necessary, apply solder paste and dip in solder momentarily.
6. If you plan to terminate using connectors, prepare them ahead and assemble them straight out of the solder pot.

Good luck. And happy listening.
To all those brave souls: These cables are really worth the effort and money.

Personal Notes from Arthur Salvatore- While I agree with the reader that a solder pot is the best method to remove the insulation from the Polk, I also found that a high temperature soldering iron works almost as well, though it is slower and messier. The reader gave me permission for his name to be posted.

A reader recently sent me an interesting new method to build a multiple Polk speaker cable (my Reference for 30+ years), using each entire cable as either the (+) or the (-), rather than the traditional method of wiring the Polk cables in parallel. It is a method I haven't tried myself, nor can I with the amount of cable I have on hand. Here's his letter with some minor editing and my bold:

"...I tried a different way of paralleling the Cobra cables that may be better...

Just a short back story. My best friend, who has a high-end solid state system (Krell Pre-Power driving Revel Ultima Salon-2 speakers), wanted to try Polk Cables after he heard them. He is happy after I made him a pair (for bi-wring) and retired his Transparent Cables. And then (too much time with the stereo due to lock-down?), he wanted to try the 6-parallel like that in my system. I told him that it will probably kill his Krell due to the 30 nF capacitance, but he suggested that there must be a way to parallel the cable without increasing the capacitance (he is an Electronics Engineer by training). So I tried to think differently (with a lot of lock-down time at home), and came up with a new way of paralleling the Cobra. Please see the attached report." (3/20)

Personal Notes - This generous reader also sent me a PDF file with all his measurements, drawings, pictures, instructions etc. Any reader interested in the PDF file can send me a request and I will forward it to them. Finally, here are some pictures, from the reader, which will help clarify his new method.

Important Notice- As of October 1, 2012, there is a minimum fee of $ 10 for me to answer a simple enquiry, which means any question that I can answer quickly without research. Anything else will cost more and I will accordingly provide quotes for approval. PayPal is being used for its convenience, universality and security. If interested, click on "Ask Arthur".

There are two exemptions to the payment fees. 1. Those readers who have provided an important service (usually information that was posted) to this website over the years. 2. Those situations where I feel that I overlooked something important and/or was obscure in my post, and thus some necessary clarification is required on my part. That will always be gratis. I don't believe in being unfair or petty, especially to my own readers.

Telephone Conversations- If a reader feels it is necessary to actually talk to me directly, this can be arranged if I also feel it is appropriate. There will be a minimum fee of $ 50. Ask for the details before paying the fee.

Finally, a veteran reader wrote that I "should also have a link for (generic) donations to keep the website going". I replied that the Donation button can also be used by appreciative readers for that purpose. Needless to say, any unsolicited donation from a generous reader receives my sincerest thanks and gratitude.