Least Losses: Long speaker cable vs. Long Interconnect?


Hi, I have such a clutter of audio gear around the TV I am contemplating moving one of my surround amps to the back of the room. This would place it near the rear speakers and give it the ventilation it needs. My question is whether I will suffer undue signal loss by having a long interconnect run (4-5 meters) as opposed to a long speaker cable run? I've been told that longer speaker runs are more desireable because they carry a high current as opposed to the voltage-based interconnects (more susceptible to signal loss). Any help would be appreaciated, especially with brands (will spend the cash if necessary). Thanks.
argent
Ck your amps specs. If your amp only needs 1 volt or close to reach rated output you will be just fine with a long IC. Use a good ic with a shield. Don't use MIT. MIT is garbage in my opinion in my experience. Kimber makes good cable. Use the best Kimber you can afford. You should be just fine with the longer IC. I use a 20ft ic although its Bal which is better for longer runs. There is other cable besides Kimber that is good. Kimber is a proven cable and a safe choice. MIT chokes the sound.
I cannot emphatically disagree more with Mikec's assessment of MIT. This is my last & final statement regarding the issue & I am not going to participate in any cable arguments (or for that matter any arguments - go to Audio Outcasts.com for plenty of that experience if desired). As previously stated: YMMV. They didn't work well for Mike's situation; they have worked wonderfully for my situation in more than one case. YMMV & then again, YMMV...
I've read, in TAS I think, that the reviewer considered a minimum length of around 8' for speaker cables to be desireable in order to get a good measure of their sonic performance. This seems to fall in line with current thinking about power cords. In many cases we all would love to have these shorter than the 'standard' 6 feet. IMHO, using the typical 8-10 foot speaker cables with "long enough" interconnects might be the best bet soundwise. It certainly won't be the cheapest way, but it will offer the most system flexibility and facilitate buying and resale.
Cheers,
Adrian
Bob not to get into it with you. We have tested the MIT against many other brands on many different set ups. It rolls the top off and just chokes the sound. Have you ever tried anything else. Anyway to each his own. I'm glad you like MIT. I think its inferior cable. So does everyone in the shop. They won't even carry it. Until you have compared MIT to other brands its not a valid statement. What have you compared MIT too? Really i don't care. I don't recommend it to my friends and customers. It's that simple. I'm glad you like MIT and i wish you all the best.
I'm not going to argue cables, but provide my recent system line-level and speaker recabling exercise..... ALL of my MIT is in the garage waiting to be sold... However, my MIT Spectral speaker cable was as good as AQ Volcano on my system at 8x the price for the same length (for the Volcano vs. used on Audiogon). Wound up with AQ KE-4, which I feel is a bargain for the performance. I had the opposite experience between the Amp and Pre-Amp where a $450 MSRP Cable blew away my MIT Bla, bla, bla proline covered with boxes thing @ $2100 MSRP. I replaced my Kimber with the MIT that I just replaced.... Moral of the story -- You have to get what is right for your current system, your wallet and your ears. As you change components, your cable may no longer be appropriate. A lot of a cable match with a system's synergy has to do with the impediance created by the entire network from the components in the system. I have tested on the order of 15-20 interconnects and 20 speaker cable sets over the course of 6 months, and kept one combination that makes my stereo WORK. I have had people very familiar with my equipment taking close looks at the rack, accusing me of spending $$ on NOS tubes, ect.