Hidiamond vs Hifidelity interconnects

I have not heard the Hidiamond ic's, but do have both the Hidiamond 8 and High Fidelity Enhanced speaker cables. As I touched on in the HF thread, although my system was very satifying musically, interest in the HF cable was piqued by the number of comments in mag reviews, Audiogon threads, and a conversation with Rick Schultz, especially in creating a full loom. Interconnects are CT-1's, power cords HD 3's. The HD cable has approx. 200 hours on them, not yet fully broken in per the distributor. He suggests 100's, and possibly 1000 hours before they perform at their best.
The HF's have less than 60 hours, also well below the recommended break-in, but I am compelled to offer some noticeable observations. Break-in of both cables has been slow-going, and therefore, unpleasant. I run a tube amp necessitating shut down at end of listening sessions. Limited to three to five hours each evening, obtaining 500 hundred hours will take well over 4 months.
The Hidiamonds' stand-out, I believe, is in the density of mid to deep bass, making the music very involving. I notice no lack of detail or body. Listening is never fatiguing.
As pleasing as the HD's are the High Fidelity's, I find, offer a clearer, more open presentation. I don't know if it is due to less distortion, but the immediacy, timbre, instrument location, decay, depth and width of staging and imaging, delineation, bass response; and consequently, a rightness is what I hear. The full loom HF cables, in comparison seem to add nothing to the source material. What the limitations of my analog rig and speakers bring to each recording is transparent in ways I am unaccustomed to. With well recorded pressings, instruments, voices, background sounds, applause are more convincing. The bass is very quick and deep, but not quite as visceral. The bass is far from anemic. I still experience a growl from the woofer, but with less exaggeration. It proposes possible added distortions with my previously owned cables. The ceramic mid-range driver of the Avalon has more often than not left the mid-frequency a bit dry, but this cable offers a very palateable contribution to voices, horns and strings.
I am anticipating the changes yet to come from the HF, and although I am pleasantly impressed with what they are already doing I from time to time yearn for the deep, emotional involvement, which has been slightly thinned out. No fireworks and no artificial tuning. As, Rick has more than once suggested, I need to be patient as the system evolves.
Admittedly, this does not address the ic comparison, but may offer some insight from a fan of both cables.

Hi Paz307,
I have found the High Fidelity, not so much analytical, as detailed and a bit thin. It's all there...just a little less dense. The body has been getting beefier with time. How long did you trial the HF's?

Fplanner2000, have you experienced a loss of gain with the HF? The depth of staging with the HF-E speaker cable is of such that instruments come off quieter, encouraging me to increase the volume. Depending on the source material, occasionally I run out of gain. I did not experience this with the CT-1 ic's.

Also, have you tried the HD speaker cable? Which model and for how long? I was told by the distributor they also take 100's of hours to sound their best.

I am using HF CT-1's. Made a more than noticeable improvement over previously used interconnects. Break-in was also considerably shorter. My biggest concern with the HF speaker cable is the loss of gain. Bass is more than plentiful. Occasionally, with approx. 60 hours of break-in, sound is flat and un-involving. Other times some of the best my system has offered.

Hello Hifial...thanks for your input. I am not realizing an issue with bass. I find the HF cables to be extremely reactive to the source material, especially in regard to the bottom end. No exaggeration or bloat. Unlike the Ct-1 ics's, though, the Enhanced speaker cable has brought down my gain by a noticeable and undesirable amount.
Comparisons of the HD 8 speaker cable to the HF is surprising, in that they have many similar attributes. The HF is more refined with better delineation, but the HD is quite good in both these areas. The slam and density, at least so far is more prominent with the HD. This makes listening easier and more relaxing for me with my system.
Maybe, the mix of HF ic's and HF speaker cable is proving to bring out the goods for my tastes.
I have not had anyone respond to the question of drop in gain.

Prior to replacing the HD 8 speaker cables with the HF Enhanced Rick forewarned me that due to the reduction in distortion I would need to increase the volume. Unexpectedly, depending on the recording, I occasionally turn up the volume pot a full 4-5 notches. This is a setting I have never pushed my amp to. Undoubtedly, I really enjoy playing loud. I agree with the repeated assessment of the full loom being deeply resolving.
What do you think, though...if I lay the HF back in after 4 days of removal, do I begin from the start?

I am a long time user and admirer of Rick's cables; including several Virtual models to the CT-1 and CT-1E ic's and speaker cable. A friend introduced me to the CT-1 about a year ago. The cables helped transform his system into a musically accurate representation of the venue. I had not ever heard reproduced organ sound this real. I purchased a used pair of CT-1 ic's, which improved my systems overall performance; most notably, bottom end, inner detail and imaging.
My friend's system required balanced ic's, bringing him to try Hidiamond cables. He went for a full loom, including P4 power cables, D3 balanced ic's, and D8 speaker cables.
While his cables were breaking in I auditioned a CT-1E speaker cable. I experienced gain issues, so Rick shipped a high gain version. It worked noticeably better, with great frequency extension, detail, staging, and tonal accuracy, with the quietest background I had heard; but the system lacked impact, density, and most importantly...musical involvement. I still felt wanting.
I eventually went all Hidiamond, except for one CT-1 ic from preamp to amp. It is hard to describe, only to say I have gone weeks without wanting to make any changes. For me that is a revelation. My system has never been more musically involving, with no lack of detail. Front to back, and side to side imaging has created a layered 3D effect producing the illusion of an instrument's full weight and body. The speakers disappear.
I need to emphasize that this is in my system in my room. I do not suggest this cable, or any cable is the be-all-end-all of cabling. From the threads expressing success with High Fidelity one would think no need to look further, but fortunately I did...and so far I am once again caught up in the music.

Hi Noom,
An odd coincidence, the one HF ic amongst a full loom of HD. I am also using P4 power cords, which I think are some of the best cords I have tried; one D9 ic going form turntable to phono; and D8 speaker cable. Lastly, a HF CT-1 ic. Each piece of wire was added individually, bringing more density and body. If I find a great deal on a used pair of 1.5-2 meter pair of rca's in CT-1E or D9, I may go for it. But, as is, extremely satisfying.

I cannot comment on which cable is better. In my system, for whatever reason, the HF ic is working quite well. Rick, prior to my auditioning the speaker cable, suggested the technology of the sc would likely transform my system. It did bring a blackness and clarity I had not previously heard, but as I earlier posted, the feeling of relaxing with the music...allowing my self to indulge in the performance was better realized with the D8.
As far as the ic's go, I have replaced a CT-1 to D9, from phono to tt, with great success. I have nearly 150 hours on it. I will give the cable additional hours and possibly switch back to the CT-1.