I just upgraded my interconnects from Diamond x3 to Amazon. The Amazons sound slightly clearer and somewhat more dynamic. The Diamond x3s are no slouches; they're quite fast, delicate, and brought a sense of immediacy to the sound. I like the Amazons. Of the nine pairs of interconnects I bought, only one was at full retail from a dealer, all the rest were at substantial discounts through Audiogon. Good luck!
I've used emerald (all versions), Lapis X3, and Diamond (X2 only). My favorite is the Lapis--I really have found very little improvement, and in some cases degredation with the diamond. Lapis is neutral, fast, detailed, and well balanced. I have not tried the new AQ line of interconnects yet--so I can't directly answer your question--but $ for $ I think the Lapis is terrific.
python is better than diamondx3, and anaconda and amazon way better, the python is more revealing than any previous cable, viper is not in the same league way below even lapis which is good, diamond adds more bass weight, but like i said python more revealing. ive owned every cable they make. regards mike
I owned Lapis X3 and compared it to Python. Python was substantially cleaner, bigger soundstage and even better bass. It is a bit brighter, but not objectionably so. At least with tube equipment, I am very happy with the sound. The guy I bought it from (who has a bunch of Python & Anaconda in his $60,000 system) said it sounds better than his old Diamond X3.
Hey, thanks for the information. It's great to know that there are still alot of AQ fans out there like me despite a growing number of cable companies in recent years.
Anyone compared the "old" line of SPEAKER cables to the new ones? I´m curious to know how my Argents (double run) stack up to the new AQ stuff (and other cables like Kimber, Tara, etc) Thanks,
I loved my AQ Diamonds and Lapis until I tried Mapleshade Clearview Double Helix for half the price. No comparison, in my system (CJ Premier l2s and l4). The AQ cables are mellow, the Mapleshades are music.
Can any of you tell me what the Daimonds sound like before they break in? A friend got a demo pair from a dealer and brought them over here and I have no idea if they had any time on them. They didn't sound at all like I thought a cable of this design might sound like, I don't want to write them off out of hand, the bass was odd and very uncontrolled and the space was flattened, and the sound stage was puny. Is that the way they sound out of the box? It sounded like JBL L 100's! I know they gotta sound better than that.
Hang in there with the Diamonds! Were your Diamonds inactive or disconnected for a while before you put them in your system? Cables often do not retain their burn in. If they are unused for some period of time (days?) or if their physical positioning (e.g., coiled vs uncoiled) changes, they need to be burned in again or at least left in place for a while. These are a function of the properties of their dielectric materials (see Audioquest's web site for some discussion). I think the Diamonds sound pretty good. Best Regards.
I have to wonder how much of a difference there is between some of these cables if they were all burned in using a burner for the same amount of time ? I think that a lot of the differences would be MUCH smaller than one might think. Sean
I understand you shouldn't run the networked cables(MIT,Transparent)on a burner. I would love to try one out, I am sure that is why some of the cables I listened to 15 years ago sounded bad, I didn't know anything about cable burn in back then.
I also have mapleshade doublehelix interconnects. I have better results with my emeralds in my system. mapleshade sounds flat in my system, and their is increased amounts of hiss. Although, I have to admit, mapleshade sounds less "electronic."
Viggen, I honestly don't understand how a cable -- any cable -- can produce more hiss in a system than another cable.
I guess we have a problem with semantics. When I said mapleshade produces more hiss, I didn't mean it added hiss. I meant there is more hiss coming out from the speakers when I use the mapleshade interconnect compared to the other interconnects I've used. Since the amount of hiss is very dramatically different, I accidentally might have "languaged" into saying the mapleshade "produces" hiss; in actuallity, it merely doesn't hinder hiss as well as other cords that are shielded. Mapleshade has no shielding, as you probably know.
I just reread my pre-previous post; I take back my last post. I don't feel I communicated the sentiment that the mapleshade interconnect has "produced" hiss. You are misconstrued.
I also should add, I don't use a preamp. My dac connects directly into my amp.
Hey guys, nice way to get so far off the topic. Where in the original question is the word Mapleshade even mentioned? How long are you going to babble about Mapleshade and semantics?
I have heard the new AQ IC's. They are incredible. Python and Anaconda are both very special at providing an uncolored signal path. I have not compared to Diamond, but I have compared them to AQ Opal and other, more expensive IC's. The new AQ was best.
Does anybody have experience with the new early modelAQ interconnects that has gold connectors instead of the colored ones?
I am currently discussing with a seller on Audiogon for a 1m pair of Python. However, he just disclosed to me that his cable was an earlier production that uses gold connectors. I am not sure to whether I should get it or not. It's shown on the audioadvisor site:
It looks like the same connector on the older Audiotruth line.
Viggen, for what its worth in your search, I was a long time user of Diamond 3x's and recall 3 distinct sounding "versions"(my term)over a multi-year period. The last version I used had a "matte" finish, verses the glossy gray of the earlier two. In my comparisions, the latest matte-finished Diamond 3X was a more refined cable, with a much better high frequency performance.