Relative importance of various interconnect types

[zepman1]

This has probably been discussed here before, but what is the conventional wisdom on the relative importance of various interconnect types? Where can you skimp more on quality? My line of thought is the following (from most important to least):

1) speaker cables
2) analog audio cables
3) analog video (ie component video)
4) hdmi/dvi
5) optical
6) digital coax
7) power cords

Any thoughts on this? Want to know where my priorities should be when selecting interconnects.

[Bigmoney]

Your list is very similar if not the same as mine would be. I might put audio connects over speaker cables. Although I am not a supporter of cables boasting claims to redefine your system and cause you to refinance your home but I believe an audio interconnect with a good qualirty connection, shielding, and low capitance can make a distinguishable audio difference. I believe in no bull**** cables and therefore strongly support blue jeans cables. Through trial an error in my system I have noticed a larger audible difference in upgrading audio interconnects that the difference of upgrading speaker cable. Speaker cable as well as audio interconnects should be kept short, under ten feet.. I think keeping cables short can yield large benefits and atleast save lots of money especially in the upper range cables. As to the other connections, I believe your priorities are formed partly on your system set up. What I am saying is that unless you have a high quality amp, an expensive power cord will not show much of an audible difference. Although small, I have heard a slightly lower noise floor with a power cord upgrade for my rotel 1080 ( 1000 msrp). Essentially, cables becoming more important as your equipment moves up in quality, BUT WILL NEVER make your system into something it's not just with carefully selection highlight their capabilites once youve quality equipment and forgot about best buy.

[Feanor]

This has probably been discussed here before, but what is the conventional wisdom on the relative importance of various interconnect types? Where can you skimp more on quality? My line of thought is the following (from most important to least):

1) speaker cables
2) analog audio cables
3) analog video (ie component video)
4) hdmi/dvi
5) optical
6) digital coax
7) power cords

....

I pretty much agree, although I haven't compared HDMI or video cables. I don't think it's wise for people with entry and mid-range systems to invest a whole lot of money in cables. With the exception of speaker and optical cables, adequate EMI/RFI shielding is important, but you can get that plus overall professional quality from Blue Jeans Cable (http://www.bluejeanscable.com/) for a very reasonable price. For that matter, medium priced Monster, Radio Shack, or Parts Express (Dayton) offerings usually work well. Use balanced (XRL) cables if your components can handle them.

For interconnects, I have heard (or noticed) no difference between Blue Jeans and Monster, Kimber, or QED offerings that cost 2x-4x as much. Granted, I haven't listend to expensive interconnects, (say $300+), but I'm skeptical that the improvement would be cost effective in a lower-mid-range system like mine; (that is, that sort of money would be better spent on more critical components).

My Monster quad cable (http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=100-656) that cost $50 including connectors for bi-wiring, sound as good as my $300 Nordost Flatline Gold MkII speaker cables.

[Bigmoney]

What equipment do you have, it is hard to make any reccomendations without know your equipment, but I generally agree with your intial list. In almost all applications, however I would strongly advocate one to get reasonably priced cables and surpass the aesthetics of how cool they may look. Before buying any expensive cable, in my eyes over 80 dollars or so, I would test it on my equipment and weigh the audible difference aginst the price. If any audible difference exists at all. Try a blind test and have your friend switch the cables while you listen to prevent any bias you may have towards the "better" cable. Feanor, I am going to do a bi-wire set up. I have 3 7 foot runs of monster z2 speaker wire which is more expensive than the monster quad you posted. I can get another 7 foot run of the z2 reference cable or two ne runs of the quad cable for about the same price. What do you think?

[Feanor]

.... Feanor, I am going to do a bi-wire set up. I have 3 7 foot runs of monster z2 speaker wire which is more expensive than the monster quad you posted. I can get another 7 foot run of the z2 reference cable or two ne runs of the quad cable for about the same price. What do you think?

Why not go for the extra run of Z2? If I understand you, it won't cost you any more than going quad. In concept I suppose it's got to be slightly better to have separate bi-wire runs than a quad, since the wire are less likely to interact.

[zepman1]

What equipment do you have, it is hard to make any reccomendations without know your equipment

It is really a generalized question, but most of my equipment is mid-fi at best. In the process of upgrading some things and will be buying some new interconnects. Not to replace old ones, which are good enough, but for a new setup. At this point I'll spend a little more on analog interconnects and speaker cable (blujeans type stuff) and cheap out on the digital with monoprice or something like that.

Just wanted to see if I was off base with my assumptions of importance.

[JohnMichael]

My personal view is to have the better cables for the lower voltage signals. The rewire for my tonearm allowed a real improvement in sound quality. I now have the same wire from cartridge clips to rca's. The signal from my low output MC reaches the phono preamp with little degredation. Next in importance is the IC's from cdp and phono pre to the int. amp. Last but not least speaker cables. I am currently not using any after market power cords and I have no video connections.