Which is better longer xlr or speaker cable


I have just purchased my first mono amps (Nuforce Reference 9V2SE's) giving me some new cable options. Currently I run a one meter pair of XLR and then four 5 meter pairs, as I biwire, of speaker cable. With the mono's now I can also do a 5 meter xlr and short speaker cables.

Which should produce better sound. And for equal sound quality, which should be less expensive. Any recommendations for a reasonable cost way to do this? I would like to get in new or used for under $500 for whatever additional stuff I have to buy. In option one I will need new speaker cable, in option two, new IC xlr. Is it OK to have different lengths of cable, probably 3 meters to the closer speaker?
Thanks
128x128gammajo
Well, I guess that I'm in the minority . . . my system's set up the opposite way. But both are equally valid in a purely technical sense, it all comes down to pragmatics.

Some advantages for longer interconnects:
-Rack of gear is smaller and less obtrusive, because the amp(s) are somewhere else
-Monoblocks look cool next each speaker
-Some speaker cables, with some systems, sound better in shorter lengths
-Long interconnects seem to be cheaper (in many manufacturers' comparable models) than long speaker cables.

Some advantages for longer speaker cables:
-Amplifiers sitting by the speakers clutters up and complicates speaker placement, and may compromise speaker placement options
-Makes a non-dedicated listening room look much less like a "man-cave"
-Some speaker cables, with some systems, can sound better in longer lengths.
-There is frequently less chance for hum and RFI interference; the preamp-level interconnect is much more suceptable than the speaker cable, and is shorter.
-You don't have an outlet by your speakers for the amp, (or) you don't have the amplifier AC running right next to your preamp signal for a long run, (or) you don't have to worry about two outlets being on the same circuit, same ground potential, etc. etc. for best performance.

For me, the decision was based on the fact that when I moved, and suddenly needed long cables . . . I liked my interconnects, which were short. But I wasn't really happy with my speaker cables, which were also short. So I kept the cables I liked, and replaced the ones I didn't . . .
Is this still for the debate?
I thought the answers to original question would end after the first post.......or maybe second..........some funny opinions tho.
Ckorody- Then you should know that THE ONLY benefit of balanced cable is the reduction of RFI/EMI noise via common mode rejection/cancellation. The quality of the interconnect WILL STILL have a major affect on the quality of the audio presentation in the home when used in a fully differential configuration. That is- unless you are of the "everything sounds the same/I can't hear any difference" crowd.
You know Rodman the mystery to me is why you have to be so belligerent. You have a set of beliefs, any challenge to them threatens you.

Fact is that everything you could possibly want to playback in your home environment is done balanced - everything - except home audio.

Beyond the considerable reduction of RFI/EMI from a balanced design, balanced runs at +4db VU compared to single ended -10db VU. That is 14 db difference in noise level - more then many preamps put out.

Home audio is single ended because it is cheaper. In fact the computer guys have tried to make it cheaper yet with 3.5mm instead of RCAs...

But there is a larger point. Balanced with XLR is the global professional standard. So (almost) no matter where in the world you go, and no matter what production environment you work in it is the same.

No one wonders when they plug their Nagra master tape into a Studer through a Neves deck if there is going to be synergy. No one wonders if there Neumann mike will sound good on a DigiBeta dub.

Your music is done that way. Your TV is done that way. Your movies are done that way. And your studio recording and mixdown is done that way.

There is no logic to support your contention that a mixdown requires something different then a source recording. What do you suppose can be different? Magically more bandwidth? From where?

In fact the more times you mix down, process, dub, master etc the worse the signal gets. Not by the way because of the cables alone, but because of the electronics and recording media. That is why one take 2 track is the cleanest audio you can find. And the new cool thing at the high end audio shows.

I believe that this superstitious worship of cables we audiophools all engage in comes from the fact that enthusiast manufacturers do not pay attention to any standards whatsoever.

The reason people spend forever talking about YMMV and synergy is because every system is unshielded, unbalanced, and has an unknown output and input requirement.

How is it that anyone who deals with audio professionally uses tones, yet all too few in our august hobby even know what they are... and absolutely no one uses them?

Cables matter a lot when there is no zero.