Palerider,
I think you either forgot to read my opening post or, since this thread features a three-part idea, maybe I didn't explain it clearly.
The first part of the idea is, in a biwired or biamped situation, to use the bass side of your biwirable speakers' binding posts to connect TWO separate wires TO THE SAME POST, one wire using spade connecters, and a second wire using the binding post's banana plug connection (of course, it is possible to connect two spades to one post, or with a banana plug adapter to connect two bananas to one post).
The second part of the idea is to recognize that wiring can affect bass in two major ways: bass "weight," or that ability to cause a listener to feel the umph of a note; and bass "definition,' or the ability of a woofer to generate distinct notes with each clearly defined from the note before and after it.
The third part of the idea was that the two connections to the bass side of biwirable speakers allows one to use specific wires for each bass aspect. That is, as I said in my opening post, I found that connecting 9g copper (using spades) generated weighty bass, and a relatively small amount of silver (using the banana connection) added definition . . . thus giving a method for improving bass by wiring for BOTH bass aspects. |
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the complements. I might add one thing to your points. I think that in addition to gauge size, cable materials are important. I know what you mean however, because like you I remember about 30 years ago using lamp wiring for my speakers, and then buying some 12 gauge copper and . . . wow, no doubt about the improvement.
I think more copper might help the bass weight, but not bass definition since only the silver in my experiments brought out the definition. And there "more" silver seemed to actually hurt definition. Of course, I don't know what the quality of the silver used in the 12g cable was (I don't want to say the brand because they sell here), so quality could've been part of it. I guessed that the skin effect hampered, but I know plenty of people have calculated that and claim it is insignificant for audio (of course, these are usually engineers who claim if it can't be measured it can't be experienced).
So I can't say how much the design of the Silver Resolutions enhanced definition (from Signal's website: "Each cable contains 4 stranded silver conductors and 8 solid-core bare copper conductors"), and how much silver alone does it; I am mostly convinced silver helped because the results fit my hypothesis (i.e., I reasoned that since silver was generally speedier, then it should help better define bass). Obviously that's not thorough science, but I can't afford to test extensively (besides, it works no matter what the reason!).
When you asked "what do you think will happen if you double up on the mid/highs," my mind lit up. To tell you the truth, it never occurred to me to try it since the MITs do such a great job, and I am afraid of messing up their seemingly delicate balance of qualities. If you have any suggestions I'd would love to hear them, but it occurs to me that using two identical MIT cables might be the way to go. |
Hi 2chnlben,
You might have missed in my post that I did attempt that. After trying the Silver Resolutions, I switched them out for pure 12g silver cables. I got a little more bass weight, but I lost every bit of the definition I'd obtained from the Silver Resolutions. Personally I don't think heavy gauge silver is very well suited for any speaker application.
The pure copper 9g cables alone gave great weight, but little definition; when combined with the Silver Resolutions, both weight and definition showed up.
Here's how I analyzed what happens. The pure silver 12g is so thick it slows down whatever quickness silver can contribute.
Next, look at the amount of silver vs. copper in the final configuration (Oval 9s + Silver Resolutions). Frank at Signal states the "effective gauge" of his cable is 12, with 8 strands of it copper, and 4 strands silver. He doesn't say if all strands are of equal gauge, but let's assume they are. That would mean only 1/3 of the total 12g of his cable is silver; further, they are not a single strand, but four thin woven strands. Finally, we have another 9g of pure copper when the Oval 9s are added to the mix.
To me it makes sense intuitively. Bass weight can handle and needs lots of copper, but definition is a more refined dynamic. Too much silver slows down conduction, especially solid core thick silver, but just the right measure, broken down into small wires, promotes silver quickness.
Of course, I realize an "intuitive" concept like mine can be ugly wrong, but no matter what, I can state confidently that a bit of silver conducted through several slim wires in combination with lots of copper equals a full bass experience of definition and weight respectively. |
Hi 2chnlben,
Yes, you have to double up at the amp too. I just realized that people already biwiring might have a space problem (at the amp) if they are using two cables instead of a single one prepared for biwiring. (Since I BIAMP I therefore have plenty of room for using my SS amp for the bass cabling arrangement I'm talking about.)
I've used a type of banana plug adapter thingy like this . . . http://www.speakerrepair.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=32-076-10&Category_Code=all_plugs . . . to hook up more wires than the amp has space for. I think there are better quality ones than at that site as well. But I do use spades and bananas at both the amp end and speaker end since it is the least messy and easiest to install.
Regarding degrading the signal, I have no way to know if using multiple wires are less efficient than a single wire made up with the same copper-silver mix as described in the two-wire approach. I have only heard improvements by doing what I am doing. But if I had to guess, I suspect a single connection would be at least a little better, it's just that all bass-dedicated wiring I've seen is REALLY expensive, and I wonder if they use as much copper, along with silver, as I have in my set up.
The great thing about Audiogon is opportunity to grab up stuff owners don't want anymore, plus the cottage industries that service here. Balanced Power Technology, Audio Metallurgy, Signal Cable . . . all these people make great stuff at a price that is fair.
So for under $400 you can put together some used Analysis Plus Oval 9s, and Silver Resolutions (cheaper if you can ever find them used), and have a great dedicated bass cable system. |
". . . . is if you were not using a Cable as a tone control to an extent than what in the world would you be spending so much money on cables in the first place if you did not expect them to change the sound to your liking!"
Hi Undertow,
I can't answer your positive and negative wire route question, but I can answer what you ask in the above quote. For me, the number one, primary, main thing I'm after is to have the signal transferred from the CD to my speakers as close as possible to the way it was recorded. So I, for the most part, do not want tone control.
Now, I say "for the most part" because there are a couple of exceptions to tonal control, but even there I want the control somewhere besides through my cables. What are the exceptions?
One is the fact that since I exclusively use CDs, and therefore a digital signal, I want to sweeten the digital edge on high and midrange frequencies. That I've been able to achieve by biamping and using tube amplification for the upper/mids.
A second reason I attempt some degree of tonal control is because of the excesses of some CDs. For example, an album I like is "Nature" by Dave's True Story. The bass on that album is too strong, but because I run my woofers as "stereo subs" out of my preamp, I can easily moderate the excessive bass.
As for the bass in general, I don't see that as much of a "tonal" issue . . . what I want is for the woofers to respond just as tight and strong as the originating signal is calling for. As I detailed in my above posts, I found my wiring was singling out bass weight or definition at the expense of other, so my cabling efforts were meant to bring out the full range of the originating signal rather than "add" something tonal to the signal. |
Hi Undertow,
I would say if you are going to define tone as you have, I can't disagree. But it seems you are also saying there is no objective standard by which to judge sound (e.g. "Who is to say that it is now because of this mix the correct sound").
First I would say, as all the humble audiophiles here say, that the "correct" sound is what appeals to one's subjective taste. However, there is for some, a more foundational standard one strives for as well, and that is how music sounds in a live setting -- from studio and night club to concert. When the objective becomes to recreate some particular natural setting, then we do in fact have an objective standard by which to decide what is most "correct."
Looking back on my experimentation with cables, I can see I have judged a cable effective primarily by two criteria: first and foremost by much information a cable allows through, and then how close to "natural" it sounds. When I switched the Signal Cable for the 12g solid silver, it was immediately obvious the solid silver was conveying far less information. BAD CABLE! :)
I know I like MIT (if not the price), for example, because they seem to deliver an unaffected signal. I know this because of trying other cables that warm or cool. I believe the only way this is done is by deleting information and/or accentuating other information.
To me, the way to go is find cables that reveal everything, and then adjust other equipment (unless one can't afford to). The exception to this (in this little theory) is choices that diminish the digital effect; that seems justified given "digitalness" is an artificial and unwanted addition to sound. |
