Clearview Golden Helix Cable

Does anyone have any experience with the Clearview Golden Helix speaker cable that is available through the Mapleshade website?

 

I use them, I actually bought two sets to bi-wire (because their bi-wire jumpers were too impractable). They're odd, the stiffness makes me think I'm using coat-hanger wire for speaker wire.

As with their interconnects I take it on faith that they sound better, they didn't make the system sound worse.

 

I used a bi-wire set of the Double Golden Helix Plus for a long time. Very clean, very fast, very transparent. They do not add any artificial warmth, and in some systems I think (those already toward the lean or bright side) could be a bit too much. A real pain to run, I finally sold mine after my growing kids became a threat to them.

John K.

 

What speaker cable did you replace with the Golden Helix? I assume from your statement that you could not identify any improvement over your previous cables.

 

What's the cost of these merkinmuffley?

 

Monsters.

The speakers I upgraded were a small set, B&W 110, maybe the improvement was too subtle for them. With my new B&Ws I've always used the Golden Helix.

 

An 8 ft. set is $85.00. See them at this link: http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/tweaks/speakercable.php

 

Some fairly bold statements in their review. I had to laugh at them beating out the Kimber 8-TC's. I know for a fact that they (Kimber 8-TC) boost the top end signal because this is what I own myself until I can fork out for Grovers speaker cables.

What equipment are you using as it doesn't say in your profile?

 

Not sure I understand. Do you mean that it's no big feat since the Kimber 8-TCs are colored/not neutral?

Over the time I owned the Mapleshades I also owned Harmonic Tech Pro 9 Plus Bi-Wires, Analysis Plus Oval 9s, and MIT MH 740 Plus Bi-wires (two systems, plus a little slow at selling off old stuff .); the Mapleshades were replaced by DH Labs Q-10. In my system, the Mapleshades were as extended at the frequency extremes--and moreso in some cases--as any of these. The Harm Tech was "fatter" in that it seemed to have a bit of mid-/lower-bass emphasis. The Analysis Plus was very balanced, but also seemed to deaden the sound; it didn't communicate much excitement to me. The MITs seemed to have a very deep bottom end, but also seemed unbalanced in that certain frequencies (lower bass, lower midrange) stood out from the rest. The Mapleshades were far and away more transparent than any of these, but still balanced in that no frequency seems to be emphasized. But, in a strange way they do seem "lean," as if they are not transmitting the full body of the music. IME detail freaks should love these. The DH Labs are also balanced across the range, with a bit less transparency than the Mapleshades, but also a touch more meat to them, which sounds right to my ears. I have Grover cables that I love--and which replaced Mapleshade interconnects, with the same results as the DH Labs. I got the DH cables before I knew about the Grovers, but I bet the Grovers are fantastic.

John K.

 

I completed my profile if you want to take a look.

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Personally I can't wait to save up for the Grover SR speaker cables as the SR IC's blew my Kimber Select KS-1010's, at over twice the price, out of the water and not by any small margin. Well balanced and completely uncolored is how I would describe the SR's.

Seriously merkinmuffley, these Grovers are worth the little bit extra than your budget is currently alotting and you'll have a reference because you'll know that they are completely neutral and any colorations in your sound would be either source or equipment related as opposed to your cables.

 

Thanks for all the responses. I've decided to go with the Grovers.

 

Just a note of caution. The Grover SR's are a delicate cable so don't try to bend or stretch them like you can with some other manufactured cables. Order them 2 feet longer than you think you require to compensate for this factor MM.