Cable Talk 3.1 Speaker Cables

Cable Talk 3.1 Speaker Cables 

DESCRIPTION

(See reviews)

USER REVIEWS

Showing 21-30 of 35  
[Aug 10, 1999]
Bubba
an Audio Enthusiast

Very over-rated cable. Soundstaging is a bit thin. Some forms of music sounds harsh and lacking in bass. This cable is touted as good for the money but I'd suggest buying something else.

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
[Sep 04, 1997]
Christian Løverås
an Audio Enthusiast

Very nice and very blue. Excellent value at £2.50 pr. metre (which isabout half of what it costs in Oslo).

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
[Feb 20, 2001]
Guoxiu
Audio Enthusiast

Strength:

Rich, liquid sound. Good bass and timing; does not "drag its feet"...

Weakness:

None for its price.

The 3.1 is the very first cable I used. Since then I have experimented with other costlier cables. Yet I still find myself returning to enjoy the familiar, well-balanced sound of the 3.1. I think that's an indicator of the excellence of this cable. Because the 3.1 does its job so well, I feel little need to invest in far costlier cables just to get that very marginal increase in details or bass.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[Oct 19, 1999]
Paulius
Audiophile

Well, I do not think this set of reviews is doing the justice to 3.1! Most of negative people just say it is bad and suggest you are better of buying more expensive cable. Nobody gives specs of systems where it is used! Nobody tells what other cable on same systems they used previous to 3.1 or after, and how the change of cable improved sound. This is a crappy approach!

I use the bi-wire version of it on NADC540>QED Qnnect2>C340 to B&W P4. I used Tara labs Klara single runs before. Klara was approx 6 feet each, Talk 3.1 is approx 18 feet each. I listen to classical, jazz, and old rock 1960-85.

Short runs of Klara were detailed and revealing, but somewhat sharp on the strings in orchestral pieces. 3.1 balanced the sound, improved width and depth of the soundstage, and gives very warm, cultured yet detailed and involving sound. I like it somewhat better than Klara, although I admit I have not tried bi-wiring with it, and lengths differ a lot.

It is good cable for most people on entry/mid level systems - those who wish to listen to music and enjoy it and not just snobbishly smirk about everything cheaper than most expensive. Cheap things can also work!

Within a year, I may try Nordost or Monster or van den Hul for change. I shall let you know...

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
5
[Mar 08, 1999]
Daniel Nagy
an Audio Enthusiast

Fast, clean, and the lower frequencies do not murmur! It is a real bargain if you want to buy high quality for a reasonable price. Bi-wiring works well in the case of classical music.

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
[Apr 25, 1999]
Lars Gibbon
an Audio Enthusiast

These cables are fairly good for simple arrangements. They reveal a good amount of detail the overall sound is clean UNTIL you play something more complex, loud or fast. They are a terrible with heavier rock, some dance & grunge. They lose the bass almost completely under these conditions. I would suggest that the are a specialty cable. If you only listen to quieter jazz, acoustic guitar and simple vocal tracks with acoustic backing give these cables a try. If you taste in music is otherwise, or is varied stay away from them.

OVERALL
RATING
2
VALUE
RATING
[Aug 27, 1999]
Tim
an Audio Enthusiast

I bougt a pair because magazines rated them as good value for money.If you are thinking of buying a pair, i suggest you don't.
The cable is way overpriced. It has bad soundstaging, and it al sounds a bit forced. With slow passages the cable works fine, but with more uptempo or more difficult music the cable losses it's quality very rapidly. The bass is poor and midrange becomes vague.
Talk 4.1 isn't much better either. I recently switched to a pair of Ixos 6003.
And a whole new world opend for me.

OVERALL
RATING
2
VALUE
RATING
[Dec 11, 1999]
zeljko
Audiophile

It's very good cable. I use it in bu-wire and I put it with my audiolab 8000a and MS 814 and it sounds very well. There is lot's of bas and vocals sounds great. Very good cable for reasonable price.

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
5
[Feb 03, 2000]
William
Casual Listener

Strength:

Good for taming forward-sounding equipment.

Never being a believer in all the esoteric cable nonsense, who on earth pays for speaker cable that would raise eyebrows in aspreys, I 've used a variety of speaker cables in the last few years and bought the Talk 4.1 out of curiousity after my 79-strand was pinched by a flatmate.

Having used Cable Talk Talk cable in a variety of systems (end), it seems best suited to VERY forward sounding budget systems typically with bookshelf speakers. 3.1 has given reasonable results with the super forward marant 63se, audio innovations alto, mission 750le. However, this was using cambridge audio pacifics and playing processed pop.

Using a tighter sounding Rotel, Cyrus and Dyn set-up with the 4.1. Yo-Yo Ma's bach suites sounded atrocious: notes were slurred and noticeably slowed. Erato's pressing of Ravel's trio lost all sense of the natural acoustic. It was difficult to pick out individual instruments, let alone follow them. Kantorow's brilliant attack and decay was non-existent. The big bass opening of Massive Attack's angel just lost it. Rock music had little drive. The big bloated bass mentioned by other reviewers was overpowering, reminding me of BIG bass boost mini systems.

Moving on to the Wireworld, the soundfield opened up immediately; much higher resolution without the odd treble peak of the cable-talk. The sound integrated more, vocal phrasing showed much improved diction and air. Music regained scale, rhythm and timing. Though the sound was a little forward , perhaps a fair reflection of the equipment. Although the wireworld is twice as expensive as the talk 4.1, the extra expense is worth it.

Even the £5/m qudos offers big improvements over the talk 4.1. Though it does have a slightly forward character. I have not found a single dealer who demoes equipment with the talk 4.1, most tend to use AQ or the qed silver, kind of makes you wonder why. Most dealers will admit it is not a good cable, but it sells. It's not to say that cable talk makes bad wire, quite a few respected manufacturers use ct, though probably not the budget Talk series. For the price charged, you can easily do better.

In the end, I gave the cable away to somebody who is an avid reader, and even more sadly, a disciple of What Hi-Fi.

Teac VRDS7, Sony CDPXA2ES, Arcam 8SE, Rotel RCD971, Marantz CD63SE for source; PSX Cyrus 3 + Power, Audio Innovations Alto, Densen Beat 100, Audiolab 8000S for control; and ProAc Response 1SC, Dynaudio Audience 50, Ruark Templars, AVI Biggatrons, Mission 760i for playback.
Interconnects AQ Emeralds, Chord Solids, Wireworld Atlantis II and Equinox II.

Similar Products Used:

QED Qudos Silver, AQ Type 6+, Wireworld Orbit.

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[Feb 19, 2000]
Tom Cooper
Audio Enthusiast

Strength:

Get it, it is wicked in bi-wire.
Much better than normal wire.

Weakness:

None at this price

I luv this cable. Wicked bass and good treble.
I reccomend it to the bone.

Similar Products Used:

NONE

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Showing 21-30 of 35  

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

audioreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com