Thiel Owners

But the more I think about it listening in mono might have limited
value since much of difference or improvement is in the soundstageing, dimensionality and clarity

Adding the Cardas hookup wire and binding posts was my last change. As with my other mods, I did one channel and let it burn in ~200 hours then compared in mono using the same 15 or so reference tracks. I sent my listening notes to Tom and proceeded to perform the Cardas upgrade on the other channel. When I listened in stereo, a *big* smile formed organically on my face. 

I haven't made such an experiment of comparing separated cables compared to those of close proximity.
 It's interesting that so many manufacturer's use close proximity for their speaker cables, whether they use twisted, braided, co-axially, compressed or layered approaches as in Jim Thiel's later preferred Goertz Alpha-Cores; that probably have the maximum close proximity possible.

@unsound 

Think of consumers having 2 cables going to thier speakers ,
imagine manufactures trying to sell you 2 cables per speaker ,
let alone the increase in cost .

My freind came over with Shunyata Balck Momba speaker cables ,
2 per speaker and only 16awg , they had a very thick outer shield making them almost imposible to bend , BUT what a sound improvement . Was it the shielding or the separation ?

I couldn't afford to upgrade and buying another set of the same cables was still more expensive than making my own cables .
So using a single run of Cardas 9.5 chassis wire for each polarity was the an affordable option . 
I heard an improvement and passed it on as something for others to try.
As for shielding ? 

When I opened my speakers and found the wiring inside to be
side by side like lamp cord I seperated them and heard an improvement.

I'm still waiting to hear from Rob G on why my or all 2.7s have this wiring instead of the straight wire that was standard in all other Thiels .
  

@vari66robert, It seems as though many manufacturers  of speaker cables have taken to additional effort to bring conductors as close as possible, going beyond merely efficiency of packaging. Brands like Vandersteen suggest separate bi-wire runs of speaker cable, not that much different than separate conductors for single terminal runs.

It might add value to describe my approach to the cable differences. First, a disclaimer. I do not claim to know how the variables of cable interact with each other. I am apprised of the textbook basics of capacitance blocking low frequencies, inductance rolling of highs, etc. And I know that dielectric absorption matters and a few conversational recommendations. And I also know that those things don't explain for me, and it seems for many very expert engineers, what we hear.

Today is not about what I think I might be hearing. It's about my setup, which might provide food for thought or questions, especially from more knowledgeable folks. Here goes. One corner of my studio has a corner baffle with floor-level bass vent into other space. This corner measures well. My amps are overhead with multiple jacks and knife switches for setting up quick-change tests. My chair is about 6' from the V point of the L-shaped room, so there is little reflection from behind. The mic is right in front of me, so it hears about what I hear. For this test, two CS2.2 are side-by side, one meter from the diagonal baffle behind them. My chair is 2.5M (100") back and the mic is 2M - I get usable measurements and hearing in this setup. In this case I have wired speaker A with 2 runs of Straightwire Octave II in standard configuration: + and - in each cable. So there are 4 wires running in 2 cables, each containing a + and a -.
The B speaker has the same cables, but one cable is ++ and the other is --. Those cables are separated by more than 12" in configuration B, and they are taped side-by side in configuration C. Today I am listening to Rory Block's "I'm Every Woman" which has enough of everything I need.

I also run FuzzMeasure through the system to document A, B and C. More coming after lunch.