VAC / Wilson cables


Before year end I'll be replacing my VAC Ren 70/70 with Kevin's current iteration, the Phi 300. I've already upgraded from Wilson's Watt/Puppy 5 to Sophia 3. The cables, however, remain Transparent Reference.

I'm wondering, having upgraded at each end, if anyone has experience with a more current and improved speaker cable ? The pre-amp is Shindo's Giscours, fed by the Miyajima Kansui on a TW Limited table. Chamber, vocals, and keyboard is the diet.

Thanks,
-john
dr_john
Very interesting summary, Kevin; thank you. Blessed Thanksgiving to all!

A comment in regards to system building considerations:
I reviewed the Signature Preamplifier MkII and the Phi 200 for Dagogo.com. Initially I was impressed with networked cables and felt there was a strong case for their use. But over time I have achieved far superior results when using non-networked cables. This has been consistent with all components/speakers whether using digital cables, interconnects, speaker cables or power cords. I also have achieved purer sound, with better microdynamics and definition when not using power filtration/regeneration components. Perhaps someday my mind will be persuaded otherwise by some product yet to be tested, but at this time I would not seek a networked cable for my reference.
Doug;
Interesting statement regarding no longer liking the networked cable solution of MIT or Transparent...so what cable manufacturer do you like; and what type of material have you found to be good, i.e.; pure copper, blends of silver and copper, etc...
You also mention that you don't like power products; or regeneration. Are you going direct to wall plug; or are passive conditioners like Equi-tech ok to use and not degrade sound?
I have MIT Magnum M-2's; with my VAC and Ventures...curious as to what path you might recommend for me to try. Happy Holidays.
Mribob, I do prefer a non-networked cable to networked, based on the comparisons over many systems. The trade-off in using networked cables and conditioning systems seems to be improvement of macrodynamics at the expense of definition/detail. I am not willing to make that trade. (I have a theory regarding the appeal/experience of networked cables, but will not take the time here to expound upon it)

You make a good point; I had powered conditioners in mind when I made my statement. However, I have used RFI filters etc. which are passive and they also it seems restrict some of the frequency range. I haven not tested Equi-tech so can't comment on that one. I believe that using a superior power cable one can outperform the use of a power conditioning device with a stock cord. I have done so several times.

I tend to like the sound of cables with high total gauge copper. In certain systems in certain locations silver cables have been quite effective. One of my favorites from among those I have reviewed is Clarity Cable. I strongly encourage comparison with sets of cables if at all possible. This shows how dramatically different a system can sound with a cable change.

The networked cable/conditioner thing is much like the SS/tube divide. It's not absolute, nor is it preventive from having good sound. One has to test things out to see what they're hearing.
Not all networks are created equal! I have vast experience as well over many systems/technologies. Synergy matters and results are dependant on music bias, room and component matching. Some non-networked cables may find a place in the mix and in certain circumstances/component mixes. All that said, Transparent uses in-line filters, so accordingly one may hear a loss if micro detail (haze). MIT is vastly superior and uses networks outside the signal path to assist in the most efficient transfer of the audio signal as possible. Systems need to be treated holisticaly and assembled judisciously for maximum efficacy. If this is done, an MIT Gen 3 or newer cable wil vastly outperform a competitive non-networked cable.