Yup, you are correct. I think the absolutely worst of the ones you mentioned is the Coax cables. I have had tons of those fail or you would have to "giggle" it to get the signal through. The great thing about DIY is YOU get to decide how you want the cable and with RCA interconnects you have choices.

I picked up some of these locking connectors at a local electronics place they are really good. I put them on cheap coax but I have some belden coming in the mail from raw cable. Now I was looking for techflex but I couldn't find a store selling colors like you used. Parts Express sells solid colors like black green blue, no mixes though

Which belden cable did you order? As for techflex you can go directly to their website and look at all the varieties they have. Although they don't sell directly they do have a list of suppliers that you can click on a be taken to their respective websites. The other thing you can do is just search on ebay as there are a lot of sellers. They have some very nice designs and it gives a real "unique" quality to the cables you make, so I would splurge and not get a solid color (of course this is just a matter of taste).

Here is a link to techflex, you can click on the "colors" tab to get pictures of their different designs. http://www.techflex.com/prod_PET.asp

I got some 1694A and some of that LC-1. LC-1 is an unbalanced cable that has a double thickness copper braid instead of braid surrounding foil. After reading a little bit more about LC-1, it seems that BJC asked Belden to make that cable because they found that for analog audio the double braid was more effective at sheilding against the interference more likely to affect analog audio than the traditional foil braid combo, found in the 1694A. Very interesting that this is the case despite the fact the cable is unbalanced. Makes me wonder how RG6 Quad Shield would perform vs the LC-1. But I also wanted cabled to make some composite, component, and digital coax cables with and the 1694A is well suited for those uses, while the LC-1 is not.

After I get these made I will do a test between three cables. Monoprice AV cables which use RG59 cable, Home Depot RG6 Coax which is a 65% braid coverage coax, and the Belden which is a 95% braid coverage coax. Also I'll test the double braid LC-1 for audio to see if thats any different from all others.

Honestly I will be suprised if I will be able to tell a difference. But making your own cable has one large benefit. Custom lengths.

BJC actually does a nice job of explaining why they picked the LC-1 for their interconnect cables. They also go into some detail of other belden choices for other applications such as subwoofer cables, instinces of high RF interference, etc. I wish all companies did this.

When I started this project I was a "doubter" of cables making a noticeable difference. However, after I installed my new cables the change was actually substantial. I can give you feedback about the monoprice premium interconnect cables as I owned those. I was using a 6 foot pair between my preamp and amp, and 2 foot pair between the source and preamp. After switching cables the clarity improvement was dramatic. I feel like the soundstage also improved and the overall sound was slightly brighter. It was a surprise and joy to hear that cables would have such an influence on sound, but it's true. I've read that the longer the cable the more impact it's going to have on the sound. How long of a length are you using, and what equipment are you hooking this up to?

If possible, post some pics of your cable I would love to see it when all finished.

My equipment isn't that high end. I use a Pioneer VSX-920-K Receiver, a D704, and a Sony 400 Disc CD Changer (unsure of the model off the top of my head, but I don' t know that it makes a difference with these). Thats pretty much all my analog connections. Except for the connections that are probably already limited, which is some video game systems. The Wii, Xbox, and PS3 are all limited by the fact you cannot use any RCA cables, because they connect to the console using a proprietary end.

Now I can't imagine that any improvment in digital connections about be made by buying more expensive cable. In fact I seem to remember a guy from BJC saying at regular hookup distances (6ft) HDMI cables were all identical, and that digital signal degredation did not occur until much longer runs. HDMI signal degredation is very easy to see. I once had a 90 connector that was not working properly, and there were green waving pixels in the picture. Very obvious.

You didn't give me the most important aspect of your setup, the speakers. Speakers will make more of a sound difference than all your other equipment put together. You may be surprised on how much of an improvement you get from a interconnect upgrade. It really depends on the specific equipment you have and of course different cables will have varying sounds so if you compare two cables that sound alike from the start you won't notice a big difference. I can however say that if you compare monoprice interconnects to the cables I made (which seems like what your going to use) there will be a difference (as long as your other components deliver).

Your absolutely right about digital connection, HDMI, toslink, coaxial digital sound. Unless your going on massively long runs (I do a 25 foot run with the hdmi to my ceiling mounted projector and have no signal degredation, [I use a monoprice preimium 25 ft cable, it's almost as thick as a garden hose!]) you won't have any quality difference with digital signals.

My speakers aren't all that great. They are this years line of Pioneer Speakers. Essentially its this package:

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/ ... /SP-PK51FS

Which is to say that I used the floorstanding speakers as the L and R front. I have two sets of the bookshelf speakers to make a 7.1 system, and I have that center channel. I use a different subwoofer though. A Polk PSW10.

For some reason I feel the need to preemptively defend my speaker choices, as Pioneer's usually get a lot of flack for being of poor quality. But this particular set of speakers was shockingly well reviewed. When I personally demoed them I found them to totally outperform anything in their price range, and outperform speakers that were much more expensive.

That doesn't look bad to me. I used to have one of those pioneer HTIB systems when I was in school and I thought it gave pretty good performance (especially for the price, it was a cheaper set than yours so I'm sure your's sounds even better). It was a really good investment at the time and now my brother uses it in his setup and seems to like it. I also use polk subwoofers (PSW650 and PSW300) in my movie watching 7.2 setup. For films, your most important speakers will be the center, front L and R so if your really into movies, that is where you want to put your best stuff. The sides and rears can be smaller as they are not employed as much. For music listening, the front R and L will obviously be the most important. By the look of the speakers, it seems most of the resources were put into the front speakers so that is good.

Even though this is an "entry level" system, I think you made a good choice and hopefully there will be an audible improvement from your cable upgrades. The great thing about these setups is that you can improve individual aspects of them one at a time. It seems like your already doing this as your using a different sub, and now your going to make new cables. After these, I probably would suggest looking into new Front L+R's if you mostly listen to music, or front L+R's plus center if you do mostly movie watching. In terms of sound quality I would say 70-80% is speakers, and 20-30% all the other equipment put together. One way to often find bargains is to buy used off of ebay or craigslist. You can sometimes score great speakers for a fraction of their MSRP.

So I see that you use a preamp. I've never really understood what a pre amp is supposed to do.

It is the piece of equipment prior to the amplifier. There are even specialized preamps. For example, when I'm listening to LP's, it goes Turntable to Phono Preamp to Preamp to Amplifier to Speakers. The preamp takes a source signal (say coming from you CD player) and does things like volume control, balance, etc. It then passes the signal to the amplifier which powers the speakers.

Another way to look at it is, a Receiver is basically a Preamp and Amplifier in one box.

So the question you must be asking is, why would anybody buy a preamp and amp if they could get it all in one package? The answer is quality. Audiophile equipment can run thousands of dollars for each component. You won't find these things at walmart, but the sound that comes from them is a joy to listen to.

The first pic is my preamp, you can see source selection, balance, volume control, etc..., the 2nd pic is my amplifier. This is the behemoth that powers my speakers!

So a seperate pre amp and amp is superior to a receiver then? How about when it comes to support for new stuff like HDMI?

You can always use a modern receiver as a preamp. A Receiver will usually have analog outputs that you can run to an amplifier. One thing you have to remember is that audiophiles generally listen to LP's which are analog only. Or if they're listening to CD's, they will most likely use analog out's on a high end CD player as the DAC in those players are generally much better than off the shelf receivers. HDMI is used mostly for movies and things like that. They are seldom employed in hi-end audio listening.

but just like anything they make junk and good ones.
when buying a pre-amp you have to look for a good one.

Exactly,... super important point!

My personal favorite is Conrad Johnson (obviously, as that is what I use), but there are many good brands.

That is true. I have been trying to compare the DAC in my receiver to the DAC in my Sony 400 Disc Changer. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that Sony lists the specs of their DAC. Just saying it has a Hybrid Pulse DAC. Its the CDP-CX455. My Receiver is listed as having 192K/24-Bit DACs. I'm sure the only way to tell for sure is to listen both ways, but its nice to have the specs point you in a direction. It probably doesn't matter anyway, and I have to use my CD Player's DAC, because I have no more Optical Inputs left on my receiver, and Sony doesn't seem to be a fan of using Digital Coax output.

If you really enjoy listening to music I would highly recommend an Oppo Digital player. They have great DAC's. I use one of their players for playing CD's. They are very much loved by the audiophile community and are "not that expensive" when compared to other high end manufacturer prices. They will also play your blu-rays! http://www.oppodigital.com/

I currently have an Oppo 981H that I was using for my meager SACD collection, and upconverting DVDs. Then I got a Toshbia HD-XA2 for HD-DVDs and it upconverts DVDs much better, so now the Oppo is hanging around for that SACD collection, and if I ever purchase DVD-Audio discs. Thats cool that its DAC is good for CDs, but honestly I would rather use my 400 Disc Mega Changer for convienance, after all that is why I bought it. But its not critical that it be the best ever. I'm more trying to sort out whether the DAC in the Mega Changer is any good. For SACD using the Oppo's DAC is a moot point because my receiver does not have 5.1 inputs. This is the main reason I don't ditch the Oppo entirely and go with one of Sony's 5 Disc SACD/CD Changers.

I would presume the DAC is better in the Oppo but I have never listened to the 400 Disc Mega Changer from sony. It's going to be a question of convenience vs a possible slight increase in quality. You can always keep both attached and if you want to sit down for a specific serious listening session, you can use the oppo and have the sony there for casual listening/convenience. Make sure your using the analog out's on these vs digital.

You think it would be better than my receiver's DAC? I wasn't sure.