Speaker Cable Lengths - W/ Monos

Hi Eldon; your input is certainly useful for Mapleshade cables. BUT, if you want to try out other shorter spkr cables, at some point you've got to "pay the price". I have used 14 ft. Syn. Res. cables for years, but I'm going to bi-amps, and could then use about 3 ft. cables.

The cheapest way for me to try them is to buy a 6-8 ft. pair used and have them cut (for bi-wires) and re-terminated. I intend to keep my 14 ft. cables at least ubtil I find out whether or not the 3 ft. ones sound better. There is a "particle" of financial risk in many things audio. No? You suggest "caution" re cutting speaker cables-- well, how would you do this test cheaper? Note: long (read expensive) ICs will be needed also. At some point, one just has to "bite the bullet" and do it, IMO. Cheers. Craig.

Long interconnects and very short loudspeaker cables sound better than short interconnects and long speaker cables in VERY close to 100% of "all cases"! - and it's not too difficult to explain why: interconencts are
voltage-driven" (almost no current) and there is practically no signal quality degradation in properly made interconencts, but loudspeaker cables carry very considerable current, so there is definitely a signal degradation in long speaker cables - which was confirmed by numerous listening tests on many different systems.

Craig. Your point is well taken. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet.

Audiopman's post seemed to be focused on the preferred cable length when used with Monoblocks. From what I've been taught, it's important to ask "What's the optimum length for my brand of cables".

Actually, Eldon's post confirms a similar statement that another cable manufacturer, now no longer actively making cables, told me a few years ago, which I had not noted earlier because I didn't really believe it. He had found that 8 foot minimum lengths of his cable sounded better than shorter ones, and that some cable manufacturers felt likewise, which was why they demoed with cables of that length. I don't recall his explanation, and I don't know if I would have believed him anyway, but I'd be interested if anyone has a scientific or other explanation.

Eldon & RCprince:

Excellent points!! They led me to contacting Tara (I should have done this in the first place).

To clarify, my intent, I was actually simply trying to determine whether or not I would ever need more than 4.5 feet of cable length. This would be the max length I would get after cutting my cables. I didn't want to regret cutting these great cables in a different room application. I think the earlier posts answered this pretty well. It seem that no one with dedicated mono cables felt that any more than 4 feet would be necessary.

On your subject though, and one I had not really considered too carefully, it makes sense that different cables might had varying "optimal" lengths. Based upon this, I contacted Tara and sure enough, they recommended not reducing the length any shorter than 4 feet. Below this length, they felt there was a reduction in performance. They stated that "The Ones" highs would be slightly rolled off and that some "airiness" and extension would be compromised. Just over four feet, they felt ther might still be some losses, however, the traditional benefits of the shorter mono configuration should more than make up for the losses.

The reason for compromised performance (as applicable to Tara's cables) is that they utilize 5-6 inch pigtails at the end of their fully shielded cable. These pigtails are considerably more flexible for manipulation and hookup than the very stiff main cable. They are not RFI sheilded to the extent of the main cable, however. The ratio of the shielded portion to pigtail lengths must be maintained at a minimum point (> 4 feet total length) to realize "The One's" optimal benefits.

Just goes to show you how complex and case by case specific this audio stuff can get. Given the above, I don't even know if I'll cut hese things yet.

Thanks again for the new threads of thought.