What would be a great way to figure out what cables we need.

[RichDavis]

Please read the entire post first and this is not intended to encourage people to run out and necessarily buy MIT products, but to just use one of their Reference products as a first round testing to be able to hear different response curves of a cable in one's system to figure out what sounds good to our ears on our system to help us in the listening process. At least one can go into an MIT dealership that has this cable, and be able to maybe sit down and go through the different settings and see what they hear and maybe try it at home as a means of trying to figure out what works best and what doesn't. I think this sort of product makes a great learning tool.

There is a cable on the market that allows the user to select different "response curves" and different impedances. It just so happens to be the top model MIT Cables Oracle MA-X SHD cable. But I think it could be used as a learning tool, but to assist us in figuring out what type of response curve we should be going for that works best for our systems since the electronics we use may dictate what response curve will ultimately sound best.

Here's a photo of the selector switches that the cable has to select the different "response curves". http://www.mitcables.com/components...ge/product/Oracle_MA_X_Supe_5111b3ce3d117.jpg

Now, if every cable manufacturer tested and published the respective "response curve" and impedance level, this would allow us POTENTIALLY, to first connect the MIT Cable as a means to dial in what would be the preferred and desired "response curve" and impedance so that we have a frame of reference of what works best for our system. Not every system is the same and every listener has their own idea of what sounds good.

So, if this would first allow us to dial in the desired sound, then we can then sift through the published "response curves" and impedances of the various cables on the market to then listen to those products that have similar "response curves" and impedance to narrow down our choice for what works best on our system whether it's an MIT Cable or not. I think this is what the industry needs is more useful measurements of cables and how they potentially will sound to produce the desired results.


I'm just hoping that one day all cables on the market will have their respective "response curves" and impedance published so that we may better understand and help us decide what cables we should be auditioning to streamline the cable selection process.

 

[es347]

..and what's really great about the MA-X cables is that they're only $50K!

 

[RichDavis]

..and what's really great about the MA-X cables is that they're only $50K!

It's like over 100 cables in one. 3 different impedance settings, and 36 different response curve combinations, that's over 100 different settings. It's freaking dirt cheap, ANYONE can afford these.

 

[es347]

I like your logic. Would you mind coming along with me and the wife next time we visit the local audio salon?

 

[RichDavis]

I like your logic. Would you mind coming along with me and the wife next time we visit the local audio salon?

I feel your pain... Here's a great stereo store salesman clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzr6lfiHJE

 

[zztop7]

I feel your pain... Here's a great stereo store salesman clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzr6lfiHJE

Nice ending - the salesman had a Heart -very rare.

zz

 

[ack]

MIT vs othes

Personally, response curves mean very little when it comes to cables. For most, I am sure the way it sounds is all they need. For me, on top of that, I also want to see designers identify audio signal transmission problems and how they resolve them. But since RichDavis brought up MIT and frequency response:

MIT

Excepting the MA-X SHD with which I have no experience (though it really feels like another departure from sanity), MIT's current articulation technology is otherwise not really about the "response curve" as you mention. As you know, they did start with impedance matching (Zobel) networks ~20 years ago (and the current Oracle and Matrix HD series do still offer adjustable impedance matching), as well as low-pass filters with very high frequency rolloff (that Spectral, for example, needs); but now the focus is on more serious problems, like voltage/current phase deviation _as a function of frequency_ (a fact with A/C signals), corrected as best as possible at "articulation" points and areas around them; this is related to the so-called Power Factor and Power Factor Correction. MIT makes an attempt to explain all this in layman's terms in this PDF http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf, but it's still too technical and lengthy - to make a long story short, they actually want current to lead voltage by 90 degrees at every frequency (which maximizes Reactive Power (Q) as per formulas below), given the following facts about A/C power (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power):

1) "If the loads are purely reactive[ack: as opposed to purely resistive], then the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase" [ack: MIT measures phase deviations by frequency and attempts to maintain that ideal relationship across the audio spectrum]; and
2) "Reactive Power (Q) flow is needed in an alternating-current transmission system to support the transfer of Real Power (P) over the network"

In the end, all this translates to more natural timbres and _even_ frequency response, among other things. For earlier discussions and examples of MIT's real-world phase deviation measurements, see this post http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8737-The-cable-conundrum&p=151720&viewfull=1#post151720

At this point, if you don't care about the details, jump to OTHERS.

In their PDF, interested readers should start at chapter 6 (and refer to the wikipedia article for clearer term definitions and further explanation), and you soon arrive at the following formulas:

Real (Active) Power (P):

Active power (P) is of the most interest to us, since it is the power that is ultimately intended for consumption by the load.

P = 1/2 * Vmax * Imax * cos(uV-uI) [W]

where Vmax and Imax are the amplitudes of the voltage and current,respectively; uV is the phase angle of the voltage; and uI is the phase angle of the current. P is given in units of Watts (W). Notice that unlike DC, the power in an AC circuit cannot be found simply by multiplying voltage and current; the respective phase angles of voltage and current must also be factored in. Because active power has the cosine function in it, it is defined as in-phase power.

Reactive Power (Q):

Reactive power (Q) is power that is temporarily stored in the reactive elements in a cable and returned back to the network.

Q = 1/2 * Vmax * Imax * sin(uV-uI) [W]

Similarly, they discuss Apparent Power |S| (this is the familiar |S| = RMS(V) * RMS(I))

The real take-away here is the relationship between Q and P (see assertion #2 from the wikipedia article above) wrt the phase angle, and that when Q is at its max, P is zero.

The wikipedia article also discusses the Power Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor), which varies between [-1...1]:

The power factor is unity (one) when the voltage and current are in phase. [ack: remember the following sentence]Purely capacitive circuits supply reactive power with the current waveform leading the voltage waveform by 90 degrees, while purely inductive circuits absorb reactive power with the current waveform lagging the voltage waveform by 90 degrees. The result of this is that capacitive and inductive circuit elements tend to cancel each other out.

In the same MIT PDF, Chapter 7 finally discusses the Power Factor as well, where the impedance angle is the phase angle of voltage and current:

uZ = uV - uI

thus the Power Factor is then:

PF = cos(uZ)

(However, MIT's formula - also encountered in many text books - usually applies to _sinusoidal waveforms_, where you can take the cosine. More appropriately, the Power Factor is really a ratio: PF = P/|S|)

Finally, in Chapter 7, MIT claims the ideal cable would actually have PF=0 (i.e. current/voltage at 90 degrees; did you expect 1, i.e. current/voltage in phase???):

The power factor of this network is then:

PF = cos(phasor(Zeq)) = cos(90) = 0

This is a very important result. It means that an ideal audio cable would have a power factor of 0. This implies that an ideal audio cable stores all (100%) of the apparent power in the reactive elements as reactive power, and then returns the reactive power back to the network as in-phase active power to be consumed by the load. The 0 power factor also implies that an ideal audio cable does not dissipate any energy within its own network (it has no resistance).

So they really do want voltage/current to be out of phase by 90 degrees - again, in a reactive A/C network, they are - as if the cable were a pure capacitor. Why? Remember: "Purely capacitive circuits supply reactive power". So MIT claims - similar to the wikipedia article - that this is how you then transport all of the Real Power (P) (and consequently Apparent Power |S|), at all frequencies, by maximizing Reactive Power (Q).

Hmm, a cable with purely capacitive behavior - this is probably why some people have said in the past: well, I don't need network boxes, I'll just plug in a huge capacitor with my cables. Well, that would make a serious high-pass filter, would probably kill your bass, and/or may send your SS amplifier into oscillation! Instead, MIT tries to solve these problems apparently by controlling phase at and around those articulation points, which would give you the benefits of a capacitive cable presumably w/o the drawbacks - and none can be heard in my system (not even phase-like issues I surmised a while ago with HD mode on the speaker cables, which is where I finally settled; in fact HD mode gives me an ever so slightly better leading transient; I suspect I was either originally wrong in my perception, or eventually after going all-MIT there are no phase-like issues).
​

OTHERS

Companies that focus on frequency response would include Transparent, which utilizes mostly Zobel networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zobel_network) - a solution of very limited value to me, unnecessarily expensive, and not really innovative: Zobel networks are not complicated as you can see in the wikipedia article, but they do solve an important problem - see excerpt (*) at the end. They can actually be as simple as a capacitor-in-series-with-a-resistor across a driver's poles - see again the bottom of the wikipedia article, or http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Speaker-Zobel/ for diagram and calculator; I used the diyaudioprojects calculator when I designed my woofers' Zobel networks (MartinLogan makes available their drivers' Thiele/Small specs). Personally, I am glad MIT has no Zobel networks in most of their speaker cables anymore - they belong in the drivers - and the MA-X SHD is to me simply a Frankstein. In addition, from the same excerpt, and considering that equipment from the same manufacturer is already impedance-matched, a Zobel network in an interconnect should simply equalize the wire's own FR, given the nominal impedances of the equipment it connects; the key here is "nominal", as the impedances can actually vary with frequency. This is why MIT's *range* impedance matching is good enough for me.

Finally, having had a number of Transparent cables in the past (owned or in for evaluation), I would personally brand them as good and possibly desirable tone controls - but tone controls won't do for me. They do work well where MITs don't, like some tube products. Those Transparents I had in for evaluation barely lasted more than an hour in my system (last one was a "matched" Reference phono), because timbres simply sounded off, the top end was missing and the sound was thick and convoluted with large orchestral. Given that I witnessed the simple capacitor-resistor Zobel in the lower end speaker cables years ago (you could open up the boxes back then), I suspect their higher-end offerings simply move up to the more "complex" Zobel networks with better parts - but if you read up on Zobel, like the wikipedia article, it is clear they are not complex at all. Therefore, I see little value, and nothing that would ever justify their astronomical prices, or even 1/100th of it.

(*) Where Zobels come into their own is in frequency equalisation applications, particularly on transmission lines. The difficulty with transmission lines is that the impedance _of the line_ varies in a complex way across the band and is tedious to measure. For most filter types, this variation in impedance will cause a significant difference in response to the theoretical, and is mathematically difficult to compensate for, even assuming that the impedance is known precisely. If Zobel networks are used however, it is _only necessary to measure the line response into a fixed resistive load and then design an equaliser to compensate it_. It is entirely unnecessary to know anything at all about the line impedance as the Zobel network will present exactly the same impedance to line as the measuring instruments. Its response will therefore be precisely as theoretically predicted. This is _a tremendous advantage where high quality lines with flat frequency responses are desired_.
​

 

[RichDavis]

Personally, response curves mean very little when it comes to cables. For most, I am sure the way it sounds is all they need. For me, on top of that, I also want to see designers identify audio signal transmission problems and how they resolve them. But since RichDavis brought up MIT and frequency response:

MIT

Excepting the MA-X SHD with which I have no experience (though it really feels like another departure from sanity), MIT's current articulation technology is otherwise not really about the "response curve" as you mention. As you know, they did start with impedance matching (Zobel) networks ~20 years ago (and the current Oracle and Matrix HD series do still offer adjustable impedance matching), as well as low-pass filters with very high frequency rolloff (that Spectral, for example, needs); but now the focus is on more serious problems, like voltage/current phase deviation _as a function of frequency_ (a fact with A/C signals), corrected as best as possible at "articulation" points and areas around them; this is related to the so-called Power Factor and Power Factor Correction. MIT makes an attempt to explain all this in layman's terms in this PDF http://www.mitcables.com/pdf/Transportable_Power_101.pdf, but it's still too technical and lengthy - to make a long story short, they actually want current to lead voltage by 90 degrees at every frequency (which maximizes Reactive Power (Q) as per formulas below), given the following facts about A/C power (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power):

1) "If the loads are purely reactive[ack: as opposed to purely resistive], then the voltage and current are 90 degrees out of phase" [ack: MIT measures phase deviations by frequency and attempts to maintain that ideal relationship across the audio spectrum]; and
2) "Reactive Power (Q) flow is needed in an alternating-current transmission system to support the transfer of Real Power (P) over the network"

In the end, all this translates to more natural timbres and _even_ frequency response, among other things. For earlier discussions and examples of MIT's real-world phase deviation measurements, see this post http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8737-The-cable-conundrum&p=151720&viewfull=1#post151720

At this point, if you don't care about the details, jump to OTHERS.

In their PDF, interested readers should start at chapter 6 (and refer to the wikipedia article for clearer term definitions and further explanation), and you soon arrive at the following formulas:

Real (Active) Power (P):


Reactive Power (Q):


Similarly, they discuss Apparent Power |S| (this is the familiar |S| = RMS(V) * RMS(I))

The real take-away here is the relationship between Q and P (see assertion #2 from the wikipedia article above) wrt the phase angle, and that when Q is at its max, P is zero.

The wikipedia article also discusses the Power Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor), which varies between [-1...1]:



In the same MIT PDF, Chapter 7 finally discusses the Power Factor as well, where the impedance angle is the phase angle of voltage and current:

uZ = uV - uI

thus the Power Factor is then:

PF = cos(uZ)

(However, MIT's formula - also encountered in many text books - usually applies to _sinusoidal waveforms_, where you can take the cosine. More appropriately, the Power Factor is really a ratio: PF = P/|S|)

Finally, in Chapter 7, MIT claims the ideal cable would actually have PF=0 (i.e. current/voltage at 90 degrees; did you expect 1, i.e. current/voltage in phase???):



So they really do want voltage/current to be out of phase by 90 degrees - again, in a reactive A/C network, they are - as if the cable were a pure capacitor. Why? Remember: "Purely capacitive circuits supply reactive power". So MIT claims - similar to the wikipedia article - that this is how you then transport all of the Real Power (P) (and consequently Apparent Power |S|), at all frequencies, by maximizing Reactive Power (Q).

Hmm, a cable with purely capacitive behavior - this is probably why some people have said in the past: well, I don't need network boxes, I'll just plug in a huge capacitor with my cables. Well, that would make a serious high-pass filter, would probably kill your bass, and/or may send your SS amplifier into oscillation! Instead, MIT tries to solve these problems apparently by controlling phase at and around those articulation points, which would give you the benefits of a capacitive cable presumably w/o the drawbacks - and none can be heard in my system (not even phase-like issues I surmised a while ago with HD mode on the speaker cables, which is where I finally settled; in fact HD mode gives me an ever so slightly better leading transient; I suspect I was either originally wrong in my perception, or eventually after going all-MIT there are no phase-like issues).
​

OTHERS

Companies that focus on frequency response would include Transparent, which utilizes mostly Zobel networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zobel_network) - a solution of very limited value to me, unnecessarily expensive, and not really innovative: Zobel networks are not complicated as you can see in the wikipedia article, but they do solve an important problem - see excerpt (*) at the end. They can actually be as simple as a capacitor-in-series-with-a-resistor across a driver's poles - see again the bottom of the wikipedia article, or http://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/Speaker-Zobel/ for diagram and calculator; I used the diyaudioprojects calculator when I designed my woofers' Zobel networks (MartinLogan makes available their drivers' Thiele/Small specs). Personally, I am glad MIT has no Zobel networks in most of their speaker cables anymore - they belong in the drivers - and the MA-X SHD is to me simply a Frankstein. In addition, from the same excerpt, and considering that equipment from the same manufacturer is already impedance-matched, a Zobel network in an interconnect should simply equalize the wire's own FR, given the nominal impedances of the equipment it connects; the key here is "nominal", as the impedances can actually vary with frequency. This is why MIT's *range* impedance matching is good enough for me.

Finally, having had a number of Transparent cables in the past (owned or in for evaluation), I would personally brand them as good and possibly desirable tone controls - but tone controls won't do for me. They do work well where MITs don't, like some tube products. Those Transparents I had in for evaluation barely lasted more than an hour in my system (last one was a "matched" Reference phono), because timbres simply sounded off, the top end was missing and the sound was thick and convoluted with large orchestral. Given that I witnessed the simple capacitor-resistor Zobel in the lower end speaker cables years ago (you could open up the boxes back then), I suspect their higher-end offerings simply move up to the more "complex" Zobel networks with better parts - but if you read up on Zobel, like the wikipedia article, it is clear they are not complex at all. Therefore, I see little value, and nothing that would ever justify their astronomical prices, or even 1/100th of it.

(*) Where Zobels come into their own is in frequency equalisation applications, particularly on transmission lines. The difficulty with transmission lines is that the impedance _of the line_ varies in a complex way across the band and is tedious to measure. For most filter types, this variation in impedance will cause a significant difference in response to the theoretical, and is mathematically difficult to compensate for, even assuming that the impedance is known precisely. If Zobel networks are used however, it is _only necessary to measure the line response into a fixed resistive load and then design an equaliser to compensate it_. It is entirely unnecessary to know anything at all about the line impedance as the Zobel network will present exactly the same impedance to line as the measuring instruments. Its response will therefore be precisely as theoretically predicted. This is _a tremendous advantage where high quality lines with flat frequency responses are desired_.
​

I think the Wikipedia article is based on only reading part of the MIT Cables technical white papers. They perform a lot of different measurements. Go to MIT Cables site read all of the White papers and actually look at the different measurements on their cables. They show RESPONSE curves of various types and they compare one of their cables to other brands of cables as well as what is "SUPPOSED" to be a "PERFECT" cable. So they have response curves that they are generating. I think the Wikipedia article your mentioning isn't taking into consideration all of the measurements they do. MIT has published their patents, they have posted what their Articulation technology is based on and no where does it mention Zobel networks. It wouldn't surprise me that Transparent uses a different type of network since they don't want to infringe on MIT Cables patents. But in either case, they do have passive networks and they are trying to achieve a flat response curve. THE SHD seems just like something that could be used in speaker design since you could test different sounding cables with ease, or someone could buy if they change equipment often and desire a different sounding cable with just a flip of a knob or two.

 

[andromedaaudio]

What would be a great way to figure out what cables we need. ???

For example a tapemeasure to measure the distance from the amp to the speaker

Sorry , I couldn't keep my mouth shut

 

[RichDavis]

What would be a great way to figure out what cables we need. ???

For example a tapemeasure to measure the distance from the amp to the speaker

Sorry , I couldn't keep my mouth shut

That's what those that don't care about the sound quality or don't have trained ears to be able to tell the sonic differences would tell you. That's one aspect of choosing the cable, but it's not the only method.

 

[microstrip]

What would be a great way to figure out what cables we need. ???

For example a tapemeasure to measure the distance from the amp to the speaker

Sorry , I couldn't keep my mouth shut

I disagree with such a simple approach. If you have a tube amplifier you can use a tape-measure, but if you have a solid state amplifier with less than .001% THD you should use a laser measuring tool. Owners of digital amplifiers are allowed to use their GPSs. Next week we will debate if scales can be used to select cables.

 

[zztop7]

What would be a great way to figure out what cables we need. ???

For example a tapemeasure to measure the distance from the amp to the speaker

Sorry , I couldn't keep my mouth shut

Brilliant, I have always wondered how to do it . I usually lie on the floor & then stand next to each component to figure the length.

Usually ends up 2 meter + 1 meter + 1 meter = 5 meters. But the cables usually end up long ???

zz.

 

[RichDavis]

I disagree with such a simple approach. If you have a tube amplifier you can use a tape-measure, but if you have a solid state amplifier with less than .001% THD you should use a laser measuring tool. Owners of digital amplifiers are allowed to use their GPSs. Next week we will debate if scales can be used to select cables.

Huh? Have you seen the specs on Goldmund's Telos 5000? check out the THD. http://www.goldmund.com/en/products/telos_5000

Too bad they don't make that many and 99.9999999999999% of the world's population can't afford this product or will even be in the same room with it, but it's specs are pretty impressive. ;-)

 

[microstrip]

Huh? Have you seen the specs on Goldmund's Telos 5000? check out the THD. http://www.goldmund.com/en/products/telos_5000

Too bad they don't make that many and 99.9999999999999% of the world's population can't afford this product or will even be in the same room with it, but it's specs are pretty impressive. ;-)

Yes, the measurements seem impressive :

SIZE AND WEIGHT 47 cm (19 ") W x 39 cm (15.5 ") D x 94 cm (37.5 ") H. -Weight: 260 kg.

Unfortunately their specifications do not seem serious : 47 cm = 18.5039" . I am not going to buy ...

 

[RichDavis]

Yes, the measurements seem impressive :

SIZE AND WEIGHT 47 cm (19 ") W x 39 cm (15.5 ") D x 94 cm (37.5 ") H. -Weight: 260 kg.

Unfortunately their specifications do not seem serious : 47 cm = 18.5039" . I am not going to buy ...

Obviously you didn't read the frequency response, THD, and other specs. That's OK, I'm sure you'll head back to their site. If nothing else, it explains what the possibility in a power amp is, even though most of us will never experience it. Oh well.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Another very logical solution would be , use the same as the internal wire as is used in the speaker itself .
People are spending sometimes thousands of $$$ on speaker wire , and when I see the simple wire which is mostly used in the speaker itself it makes me wonder .
I always learned that a chain is as strong as the weakest part .
I use a good grade well insulated wire , not the standard shopwire off course but also not worth thousands of $$$
IMO you got to put the money where it hurts to get the best system

 

[RichDavis]

Another very logical solution would be , use the same as the internal wire as is used in the speaker itself .
People are spending sometimes thousands of $$$ on speaker wire , and when I see the simple wire which is mostly used in the speaker itself it makes me wonder .
I always learned that a chain is as strong as the weakest part .
I use a good grade well insulated wire , not the standard shopwire off course but also not worth thousands of $$$
IMO you got to put the money where it hurts to get the best system

Well, here's some information on that approach.

I think it's an approach that does have some merit to it. Speaker mfg do design their products with certain cable internally. So, it many times would seem to make the logical sense. However, there are projects that I've read about where someone actually requested a DIFFERENT cable than what the speaker mfg normally uses and they did it with better results than the original which had less expensive, more generic cables. So in that case, they switched the internal cables to ones that they preferred vs the cables that normally are wired.

Every cable mfg has their own approach to making cables and they'll all sound slightly differently, some differences can be minimal and some can be quite drastic and that depends on the system and one's ability to hear. But if you have a lot of experience in cables, then you might have a favorite brand and maybe you can request the speaker mfg to re-wire using the brand you like, or have someone (or yourself) re-wire the speaker yourself (once the warranty is over). But some of these power amps out there actually don't work well with certain cables. I read an article on someone reviewing one brand power amp, and just before they were about to use a certain brand cable, the mfg called them up and told them NOT to use that cable because of capacitance reasons and the amp make actually fry the cable. I thought that was a little amusing.

Anyway, I agree that that might be a great choice is use what the mfg uses. It makes sense.

 

[es347]

Another very logical solution would be , use the same as the internal wire as is used in the speaker itself .
People are spending sometimes thousands of $$$ on speaker wire , and when I see the simple wire which is mostly used in the speaker itself it makes me wonder .
I always learned that a chain is as strong as the weakest part .
I use a good grade well insulated wire , not the standard shopwire off course but also not worth thousands of $$$
IMO you got to put the money where it hurts to get the best system

Von Schweikert Audio has an esoteric line of cabling called Masterbuilt and in their speakers starting with the VR5 and up they are installing the Masterbuilt speaker wire. I haven't heard that combination but the feedback has been enthusiastically positive..

 

[RichDavis]

Von Schweikert Audio has an esoteric line of cabling called Masterbuilt and in their speakers starting with the VR5 and up they are installing the Masterbuilt speaker wire. I haven't heard that combination but the feedback has been enthusiastically positive..

I've been noticing two trends. 1. The speaker mfg partners with a cable mfg to have their products wired internally with a specific cable mfg. 2. Speaker mfg are designing and coming out with their own line of cables and using that internally. I'm noticing more and more companies that make the entire line of products (speakers, amps, pre amps, etc.) develop their own line of cables. So, it just gets more confusing as time goes on.

 

[microstrip]

Another very logical solution would be , use the same as the internal wire as is used in the speaker itself .
People are spending sometimes thousands of $$$ on speaker wire , and when I see the simple wire which is mostly used in the speaker itself it makes me wonder .
I always learned that a chain is as strong as the weakest part .
I use a good grade well insulated wire , not the standard shopwire off course but also not worth thousands of $$$
IMO you got to put the money where it hurts to get the best system

Andromedaaudio,

IMHO it does not seem a good recipe. The internal wire used to connect the speakers to the crossover has much less ambitious and very different requirements than the wire connecting the amplifier to the speaker. Unless you are a believer that all decent cables sound the same, nothing else can support this position.

Philip Newell of Acoustic Design wrote an article on cables in Hifi Critic about this specific aspect some years ago. At less one member of WBF would be very happy with his solution to this problem - going active!