How Good are the Analysis Plus speaker c

I'm in the same boat as you are Carl. I didn't have much luck with it here. One point that i would like to mention though is that, according to the Goertz literature, it too can reproduce a square wave. The difference in their literature is that Goertz uses direct comparisons to high grade Litz / braided type wires in their literature whereas the Analysis plus does their comparisons to a "solid 12 gauge wire that is round in configuration". Nothing like "picking and choosing" your reference points. Sheesh, compared to a Briggs & Stratton, a 1962 VW Beetle motor seems like a power-house. I would also like to ask that, if their "hollow oval" design is the cat's meow, why don't their silver cables use the same geometry ? Those are stacked on top of each other ( like Goertz ) instead of being of the flat coaxial design that the copper uses. There's something to think about. Why make all the hoopla about something and then NOT use it for your top of the line product ??? That should tell you something right there. Regardless of all this, i am a firm believer that there are major differences from system to system and personal taste is the bottom line. Buy what works and sounds best to YOU. After all, your the one listening to the system. >

Sean, as you said so well in your original post, it all depends on your system and your taste in sound, that is why home trail of cables is recommended. If you want dynamic, exciting sound Oval 9 is not the best choice. If you want smooth, natural sound then Oval 9 is great choice. I originally tried Oval 9 at home and returned them because I thought they were too relaxed and smooth, no excitement. My Argents I thought had more bass and treble extension and sounded more powerful. After a couple weeks back with my old cables (AQ Argents) I slowly realized I really missed Oval 9 natural smooth as silk sound, and massive soundstage, and tried them again. This time they stayed for good and Argents were sold, and I am very happy with my choice. So it doesn't matter what any chart says, or reviewer, as you say correctly it what you like for your system, regards Sam

Mikeg, Thanks for the input. It helps confirm that my upgrade path makes some sense. Sean, No offense taken at all. Your comments were well made and the discourse appreciated.

My experience was that a less expensive cable did everything better than the Oval 9, including warmth, natural-ness, large/deep/wide/ soundstage, speed, bandwidth, detail retrieval, imaging solidity, edge delineation...and you name it. And to compare the dynamics (both micro and macro) and sheer slam factor, to the Oval nine, is like comparing that 1960's VW to a top fuel dragster...This other cable was the previous series of MIT's affordable Terminator 2. These were at such a low price, that I gurantee my great grand children will be using mine (perhaps if only as a novelty) in their systems, in the 22nd century....Put another way, I'd never re-sell these, unless someone offered me many thousands of dollars for them (and if I couldn't buy any more of the closed-out "new" ones, the amount would have to be in the tens of thousands of dollars). That's how much I like them. Yes I'm biased, but for good reason, IMHO. And it's not as if many other cables didn't also beat the Oval 9, because they did in my system. My amp (during these particular comparisons): Krell KAV-250a. CD player: CD50. Speakers: MMG. Amp's power cord: Black Mamba (at that time). CD player power cord: MIT Z-Cord 2, plugged into Chang 6400 CLZ. Interconnect: MIT 330 SG Proline. Room treatment: ASC and RPG profoam. Except for the Chang, I've compared all of these to the competition, some of them to many different competing products.

Hi Carl, What speaker cable are you using? Sounds really good for solid-state...