After wading through mountains of claims, technical jargon etc. I'm hoping to hear from some folks who have had experience with good, neutral, reasonably priced cables. I have to recable my entire system after switching from Naim and want to get it right without going nuts! Here is what I'm looking for and the gear that I have:
Looking for something reasonably priced-i.e. used IC's around $100-150. Used speaker cable around $300-400 for 10ft pair.
Not looking for tone controls. I don't want to try to balance colorations in my system. I'd like cables that add/substract as little from the signal as possible.
Looking for something easily obtainable on the used market i.e. that I can find the whole set up I need without waiting for months and months. I guess this would limit you to some of the more popular brands. Without trying to lead you, here are some I've been considering:
Boy, it sure is refreshing to see some other people taking the beating, and not me, for a change.
Maybe a good suggestion would be for everyone to get rid of their speakers altogether, and replace them with oscilloscopes, so we could all watch the happy waveforms of our favorite music dancing on the screen, and continuously analyzing the distortion products, instead of listening to music.
Now that sounds like fun.
I can just imagine the Audiogon posts then: "How come my oscilloscope shows more distortion product when I use speaker cable B, than A?" Or my favorite: Should we really be using speaker cables on our oscilloscopes, or would it be better to use oscilloscope cables instead?" Or: "Does anybody else like to watch steady-state test tone wave patterns?" Or, the ever-popular: "Where can I get a cheap cable that will show good waveforms on my 'scope?"
Somehow, I manage to get enjoyable listening, even without ever hooking up a single piece of test equipment to my system. Do I need a 12-step program to release me from the errors of my ways? Or maybe I should have said a "12-step function selector switch?" :^)
Optimistically speaking though, maybe someday our testing methods will include actually listening to the music. That would be a great day indeed. I find it rather humorous that the only testing method that "does not count" is listening with the human ears in your own listening room. And that there is "no error" in testing regimes, and all error is in the ear or perceptions of the ears, because science is god and cannot be wrong, or more accurately, wrongly applied.
Technology is a means to an end, nothing more. That "end" is listening to the music. If the technology does not improve your listening enjoyment, or even detracts from it, then it is useless. Getting a perfect scope pattern, if it doesn't translate into better enjoyment, is not the goal.
You can't "spec" or "measure" your way to audio nirvana. Audio nirvana is an emotional place which is provided by the emotional content of the music. There is no "emotional content meter" available. Good luck with your other meters.
You can "extrapolate" specs all you want, and try to "presume" that "this" measurement will mean "that" level of enjoyment, but in the end it is "in the ears" and "in the emotions", my friend. That, you cannot measure with a meter, you can only experience it, and THAT is "where it's at".
You can take 2 audio tubes that measure and spec exactly the same, but may come from a different manufacturer, and they sound noticeably different. Why? Do we want to dissect these tubes, and perform sub-atomic testing, so that ultimately we can learn that "matter" and "energy" and "space" are all actually "one", and we have no idea what is at the basis of it all? Maybe you do. But I don't. I want to hear a nice sounding audio system that stirs my soul with music.
What if you found 2 different cables that had all the same measurements exactly, and sounded different? What would you do then? I'll tell you what you'd do. You'd have to accept that your measurements are incomplete, and flawed in concept and application, and that they only tell you rudimentary things. Then, you'd be starting out on the same road that many of us started on long ago. It's in the listening.
Robert: Many of the points that you bring up are valid. On others, i could respond point by point and waste my time, your time and that of anyone else that read it. Rather than do that, i'll keep it short and respond to two statements that you made: ---------------------------------------------------------- "Now come on Sean. You accuse me of writing a novel. I said what you said above here with less words! What I said was:
Purity has to do with the level of impurities. We all know that I think. Q has to do with levels of types of impurities.
You forgot to mention that you did this AFTER posting four "novels" with no such information in any of them. Had you responded to the questions that were asked in an easy to read and respond to form, most of this would have never taken place.
As to the second comment, i'm surely NOT a liberal. Nor am i a CONservative. I'm a socialist, hence my concerns for the average citizen i.e. audio enthusiast. While "liberals" want to give the property of others away in order to "take care of the masses", socialists believe that everyone is responsible for taking care of themselves and earning their own keep. That's why i try to make the masses aware of the facts & figures involved in the equation. That way they can formulate their own educated answers to the questions and decisions at hand. Some will absorb that information right away and respond accordingly, probably saving themselves time, money and frustration in the process. Some will disregard and make their own decisions, with some of those decisions and actions being mistakes. Some of those that initially disregarded the facts & figures may come to realize that the information provided was of greater value than they initially though, but that would be at a later date, explaining why & how they made the mistakes that they did.
As i've said before, i'm planting seeds. Some seeds will grow, some will be stomped on, some will be carried away by the birds and deposited elsewhere, possibly taking root at a later date in an unexpected place. Obviously, i'm not the perfect farmer and the harvest represents that fact. My methods in some areas are quite lacking. As such, some will nurture those seeds, some will pull them up by the roots and others won't know whether they are a plant or a weed.
Another problem is, i think that i've been planting roses. That's because much of the beauty that i strive for has been marred by the thorns that i've left behind. As such, i apologize for the occasional hurt that those thorns have caused and hope that the beauty of the bloom that comes to flourish more than makes up for the damage done.
Thanks all for putting up with me. To those that recognize my motives and have tried to steer me back on course when i've veered, i appreciate your honesty and effort. This includes those that i've had words with too, as i know that at least some of their concerns were fair and just.
Ernie: Dielectric Absorption ( DA ) takes place to a far greater extent as frequency rises. This makes it a non-linear distortion because it doesn't absorb all frequencies at the same rate.
As such, one can turn the drawbacks of DA into an actual asset by taking advantage of this knowledge. That is, by allowing the low frequencies ( 60 Hz AC waveform ) to pass unhindered, and by absorbing a greater ratio of signal as frequency rises, one has developed a form of a low pass filter. This has been achieved at reduced cost and complexity due to the use of lower grade dielectrics without the added expense or drawbacks of any extra parts or active circuitry. Granted, the effects achieved through careful application of DA is NOT going to be a sharp slope or even a linear slope, but it will be beneficial none the less.
Where lower grade dielectrics run into problems is with "seepage". Many cheap dielectrics "bleed" i.e. their plasticizers are leeched out of the jacket and contaminate the conductors. I'm sure that some of you have seen this before i.e. taken apart a cable only to find a dark, smeary contaminant on the surface. The contamination process can be sped up via stress to the cable i.e. running it beyond its' thermal limits, mass exposure to UV rays, etc...
In this regard, Teflon is a much better dielectric. That's because it's more stable and can take a lot of heat. The way to get around the lack of stability and "bleeding" of plasticizers in order to achieve "Teflon-like" stability is to use a more stable dielectric AND keep ambient and operating temperatures low. By doing your homework, you can find a relatively stable dielectric that retains a higher DA. In order to keep thermal operating temperatures down, you can use multiple conductors to share the load. By sharing the load, internal coulomb friction is reduced and operating temperatures are kept to a minimum. The fact that many lower grade dielectrics are less rigid than Teflon also means increased flexibility with less potential for microphonic transfer of energy.
Another advantage to this approach is that multiple conductors for each given polarity means that you can now use specific geometries. These geometries reduce the radiation of EM ( Electro-Magnetic ) fields and at the same time, are not nearly as susceptable to RFI and EMI. This means that your power cord can now be placed closer to your signal carrying cables with less potential for sonic degradation AND your power cord has less of a chance of acting like an antenna for incoming signals. Yet another benefit is that certain geometries will lower the inductance of the cable, allowing the AC to feed the component on a more timely basis.
As a side effect / additional benefit of lowering the inductance through the use of specific geometries, you also increase the capacitance of the cable. By distributing the capacitance over the length of the cable, you in effect end up with a very mild parallel line filter. Devices like Audioprism Quiet Lines and the home-brew devices that Magnan recommends, etc... are all capacitively based parallel line filters. While the distributed capacitance of the power cord using specific geometries will not be as effective as the lumped sums of capacitance as found in the "plug in" filters mentioned above, every little bit helps.
As you can see, there is a method to the madness that goes into making a well rounded, thoroughly thought-out product. Most of this is based on the proper application of technology. That technology was gathered through various testing methods. By compiling the test results and properly interpreting them, one can pick and choose between the specific positive and / or negative attributes that each product / material brings with it. If done carefully, the end result is an organized presentation of those calculated strengths and weaknesses to achieve the desired goals.
As i've said before, nothing that we are doing here is a mystery. The only part that is a mystery is why more manufacturers don't make use of the information & technology that is available to them. The fact that most audiophiles aren't aware of all of the facts pertaining to various products allows these manufacturers to keep the public in the dark and charge the prices that they do. In this respect, most of the cable manufacturers and other parts of the high end audio industry fear an educated public. That would mean that their profit margin was gone, except for those that remained gullible enough to believe all of the marketing hype. Those that actually looked into and understood the facts pertaining to the situation / product at hand would no longer be at the mercy of those that are peddling snake oil.
All of that is why i post the things that i do. The more that you know, the more effective your decisions will become. Sean >
Well Sean, are you going to borrow the cables or not? Five sets and a whole month should be plenty for doing your analysis (dont' cut them open). There's nothing wrong nor it means any loss of face by actually liking them. You could even drive to Robert's place and have a beer with him! If he invites me I'll drive to LaPorte this weekend before moving to Florida...I would like to hear his new demo room.
I think the cables will be a paradigm shift.
Robert, I have never made any claims of being mentally sane. It's not mentally sane to have mini-monitors with 4 inch woofers play at loud volume *hardcore* salsa recordings of full blown, 20+ musicians' orchestras. Yet, somehow it is possible. RX8man had a paradigm shift when he witnessed the Fania All Stars playing in my living room. It's not supposed to be possible...
Good, wholesome foods have crap in them. After chewing, digestion starts and the crap comes out the other end!
Twl: You should contact Berning, Lowther, Sonoran, etc... and see if they just threw parts together at random till they got something that worked and shoved them out the door or if they actually did some R&D with test equipment to arrive at the level of performance and sonics that they desired and you seem to enjoy so much. You're applying a level of logic in the venom that you spew my way that you're not applying to those that made the products that you so love.
Just because one understands or desires to understand how & why a product works doesn't mean that one can't enjoy the music that it makes. Quite the contrary in fact. Knowing how it works can help one to attain even better results through making more informed decisions as to the suitability of components to achieve one's desired goals. As a side note, many of your analogies are quite flawed, but i won't bother pointing out why. I think that the above sums up my point of view well enough.
By the way, i'm glad to see you back, even if this is the manner in which you choose to return. Before you became a Star Sound clone, your responses were always cogent and helpful. I hope that you've brought some of that back with you now. Sean >
I agree Albert. After reading a thread like the one that Trelja started and thinking about the other disasters and turmoil that is taking place in Florida and other places around the world, all of this is petty bullshit. My heart goes out to those people suffering through those situations and i'm sorry for not having my priorities right. God Bless Us All... Sean >
Oh, look. Everyone got together and worked things out. Very nice! A couple days ago, I was certain that some kind of 'everyone gets a timeout, and if you all play nice after that, maybe some milk and cookies too' post would be called for.
Actually, there are some thoughts that came to mind during the episode above that might make a little more sense to interject now-
1) While I'm as frustrated as anyone else by Robert's tendency to talk around design points rather than be specific, I can completely understand why he's doing it. Any way you look at it, the 'cable business' has extremely low barriers to entry. Basically, any Tom, Dick and Harry can decide to become an audiophile cable manufacturer by making a few phonecalls to Goodfellow, Alfa/Aesar, etc. for 'interesting' wires as well as to McMaster-Carr etc. for 'interesting' tubing, etc. Spend a little additional money on shims, threading devices, soldering, online ads, commisions for a few shills, etc. and you're in business.
NOTE: I'm not saying that the above actions will allow someone to make good cables, nor am I insinuating that folks who get into the business do no more than the above (or all of the above, particularly where the shills are concerned)- I'm just pointing out that from an economic perspective, it is an easy, and relatively unencumbered thing to do. You don't need to license a huge number of patents from entrenched industry players, you don't need to spend a small fortune in startup research and engineering, and you don't need to establish a large, complex business organization.
The point I'm driving at, and may eventually get to, is that for a small player to divulge its strategy or trade secrets in such a business environment is suicidal. Anyone doing so is likely to get eaten from above (the 'shark' attack) if their product offers new technology that a big established player has easy access to, and can appropriate. At the same time, anyone doing so is likely to get eaten from below (the piranha swarm) by a bunch of hungry small competitors who have just had their job made easy for them.
Basically, someone like Robert has no choice to be cagey, unless they are willing to spend very significant amounts of time and money generating an intellectual property strategy and securing patents on whatever new design or technology they have come up with. Successful execution of a patent takes multiple years and costs somewhere between $5k and $10k- not small potatoes for a small business. Then, there is the entire aspect of defending a patent from infringement...
Even if someone were to try protecting their technology by patents, the bar is very high for anyone to successfully patent anything in the cable area, since so much has already been tried, or discussed. This prior art will ensure that any patent is likely to be so narrow that 'workarounds' are easy to develop.
This gets us back to the option of being cagey and playing the cards close to one's vest. Justifiably annoying for those of us interested in the science and engineering of what is going on, but the only reasonable course of action for someone in the business. Personally, my hat is off to Robert for communicating at all outside of the realm of advertising copy.
2) Sean, a couple of quick points on dielectics- your comments on teflon are good as far as they go. However, if dielectric constant is the only thing that matters, one can do much better by simply using air (or a vacuum, for that matter.) Of course, this is difficult to implement, although I've seem a couple of examples of folks building cables with positioning pieces that 'suspend' a wire in the middle of a plastic tube.
Practically speaking, foamed dielectrics are the better way to go- teflon (in its various flavors) polyethylene, polypropylene etc. all can be foamed to yield mostly-air matrices with a fair bit of mechanical integrity, with much lower (bulk) dielectric constants than pure teflon itself.
I can see a few drawbacks to this approach- even if the foam is closed-cell (i.e., the trapped bubbles don't connect physically), a foamed dielectric will be a much poorer barrier layer for a conductor- surface oxidation will be faster. Then, there is the issue of homogeneity on the necessary size scales- if bubbles are too big/too small, then the conductor will see local variations in dielectric environment (low for actual bubbles, high for the plastic bubble walls) that are significant in audio frequency signal propagation.
On the other hand, teflon itself isn't a very good barrier for oxygen permeation- having it there is better than being exposed to air directly, but the rate of gas transport through the teflon isn't insignificant. If one really wanted a barrier layer, then poly(chloro-flouroolefin) polymers are significantly better (however, their dielectric constants are higher). To get to the point where no oxygen reaches the conductor, one needs inorganic barriers such as a glass layer (again, this would be a higher dielectric constant material, but a few microns of coating will suffice).
In all likelihood, I'm barely scratching the surface here- there are probably lots of additional tradeoffs that I'm not even aware of.
It boggles my mind that someone would design a cable with a plasticizer-containing coating. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge in the area knows plasticizers move around, degrade, and are freqently reactive with other kinds of materials. The same goes for a lot of UV stabilizers and anti-oxidants present in plastics- once they work their way out of the plastic, they can attack metals. Silly, silly, silly.
3) Twl- I think I agree with the specifics of everything you said upthread, but come to a different conclusion- when you say,
'You can't "spec" or "measure" your way to audio nirvana,'
I have to agree on the experiential level. Where I disagree, or perhaps emphasize things differently, is in being upfront about inadequate measurement techniques. (You mention this as well- I view it as a really central point.)
As I mentioned above, an in-depth look at the technical literature where one would expect to find information about cable measurement and measurement techniques, reveals that there isn't really much there! (Please, someone correct this impression if I'm wrong!)
That being the case, I'm willing to bet my $3 in disposable income that whatever measurement techniques are being used aren't sufficient to reveal the physical processes behind how cable properties affect the human auditory organs, much less how the psychoacoustics work. There are a lot of currently un- or under-investigated connections to be made.
Sean did an excellent job upthread in categorizing cable properties and how they can degrade specific parts of an electrical signal- I'd love to see it formally detailed someplace, preferrably in a peer-reviewed technical journal. Still, going from there, there are many additional gaps until one reaches an understanding of how any one of us experiences 'audio nirvana'.
Until I find those gaps investigated and understood, I'm not willing to concede that 'good measurement' and 'audio nirvana' aren't ultimately the same thing. It's just that the good measurements, and ultimately the predictive models one can derive from them, don't currently seem to exist in any systematic form. (Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) Simply throwing in the towel and saying 'it can't be scientifically explained' ends up in the same place as medical quackery of various sorts- nobody with a rationalist bent or any appreciation at all of human intellectual development wants to end up there.
As a bystander... are you just going to try the damn cables and see what you think Sean? Free trial is free trial, your potential time lost is your potential time lost, however the possibility of finding a path to better sound is why most of us are here.
My point is not to say that engineering doesn't count. My point is that the sonic results AT THE EARS and in IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SYSTEM BEING USED is the ultimate "test".
As I have been involved in the cable business on the sales end, I have seen many situations where very expensive cables have fared poorly and were replaced with inexpensive cables, and vice versa. In all cases, the cables had good anecdotal reputations in other systems. Nothing is perfect in every application. The fairest method is offering a trial period for the user to asess the performance in his/her system context, for his/her preferences in sound. We do this, and so do some other cable makers.
In some cases, what we thought "should have been better" was not better in the views of the user. Was the user wrong? No. The user must decide for himself what he/she likes or dislikes in conjunction with their other components.
It is impossible to say that any particular cable will be preferred in any particular system. Too many variables involved, including user preferences which cannot be predicted.
When someone calls me to try our cables, I never say that our cable will be sure to beat out whatever else they are considering. I only say that our cables are very good, and stand a good chance of being the best ones that they audition. If this doesn't turn out to be the case(with them as the sole judge), they can send them back for a full refund within 30 days. I don't know how to be any fairer than that.
DISCLAIMER: I work for a company that manufactures audio cables, vibration control devices, racks, stands, audio electronics components, and speakers. All have a 30-day money back, 100% satisfaction guarantee.
I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of Sean, Tommywall and others above. There is a huge need in my view to finally get some of this cable craziness over with and down to a set of rational scientific models that are testable and verifiable. $6000 power cords are simply an unsustainable bubble, and despite the audibility of differences, I start agreeing with the many who become disallusioned and contemptuous toward audiophiles.
There is enough knowledge and data to do a research program that would sort out many of the questions and assertions above. No theory will account for every case or describe all of the fine detail, but you should certainly be able to get the main points right - cables are not black boxes. That includes the contributions of line impurities, filters, and break in.
Any valid studies have to be done as peer-reviewed white papers; it is the ONLY way they will be respected or accepted. Further, given the true complexity of electromagnetic field theory and electron flow models, it is pretty certain that anyone doing such work needs to have academic help or have advanced background themselves.
Despite all of the arguments about the importance of ears and preferences, I predict that if a series of good papers came out documenting the best construction techniques and best approaches to power handling, most audio design would follow along quickly.
Hear, hear Flex. If we don't know what we don't know, let's learn some of it! At the end, the ears are the judge, but we can get better at this through research.
I have news for you, Flex! Academic research is focused at war technology and making money, not truth. I graduated from one of those *famous* universities that have vines growing on their building walls outside and have self appointed themselves as a "league". The National Semiconductor Facility is there--cofunded by the governement and private industry. The list goes on and on...it's just a big facade.
I agree with getting affordable good sounding cables too. I'm not rich, and like good sounding gear.
I think that alot of the sentiment spoken here is based on the desire to have the advantages of megabuck equipment at mass market prices. I'm all for it.
In other markets, there has been some "standardization" protocols used for connection technologies. Maybe that is what some of us would like to see here. Like all speaker loads could be required to exhibit the same impedance, current draw, phase shift, and other characteristics, before they could be approved for "standardization". Also, all amp output stages would have to have similar characteristics that are optimized for driving the "standardized" speaker loads. Cables could then be "standardized" to provide the proper criteria for connecting these "standardized" amps and speakers.
Unfortunately, this kind of standardization generally results in mediocrity of performance, but nice interconnectivity and price. When performance innovations are considered, they may not fit into the standardization pattern, and performance seeking audiophiles could then purchase non-standard audio equipment at their own risk(and pleasure).
This way, the mass market, and lower end audiphile market could have great interconnectivity and flexibility, with decent performance guaranteed by the "standards committee". Any piece of gear with the "seal of approval" could be counted-on to work well with other gear exhibiting the "seal of approval". Other gear "outside the box" and not exhibiting the "seal of approval" could be purchased by more seasoned audiophiles who wish to go beyond the norm, and experiment with high-performance products at their own financial risk.
With both types of products available to consumers, nobody is "boxed in" to any one form or the other. They are free to buy the "standardized gear" and be assured of a good level of performance. Or they could spend alot more and get what they want to have without any restrictions by the standardizations.
Perhaps this is what is needed.
But, without standardization, there are too many variables to make very realistic predictions exactly how any given product will perform with other products. We are expected to know that my little 2 watt SET amp will not work with a pair of Apogee Scintillas. But when it gets more subtle, it becomes more difficult. Maybe this is even some of the fun in assembling an audio system. And the variety is part of the game.
We all want a Ferrari for the price of a used Yugo, but that ain't gonna happen. If we boil all this down to the essence, it is that we want a particular cable because it sounds like we want it to, but we don't want to pay the guy that makes it what he wants to charge us. Unfortunately, that's life. If all we wanted was just some cable, we'd go down to Home Depot and buy the 14ga extension cords and cut them up and use them. But we really don't want that, do we? Not really. What we want is the ultimate megabuck cable for $12.95. It's just not realistic. In all markets, the better stuff costs more, and the really hot stuff costs alot. If you really want it, you'll have to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, then you'll have to settle for what you can. Or, if you actually think that there isn't any real technology in these cables, you can try to make some yourself. If you get a good sounding cable put together, you can start up your own company and find out how much it really costs to do this on a corporate scale, with labor costs, inventory costs, taxes, plants, warehouses, insurance, marketing, advertising, dealer margins, etc, and why they cost what they do when you can only sell a couple hundred pairs a year(if you're lucky).
I just want it all to make me happy, as well as the few friends I have who stop by to listen with me. Lightening Rods under musical instruments make it all stand up.Tom
Psychic & Audiofankj: The reason that i didn't "jump" on the offer to check these out is that i currently have four out of five systems down and torn apart. The only one that is running is my HT system, which is XLR based. On top of that, i've got all five speakers pulled apart for crossover upgrades and am using other speakers temporarily. As such, i can substitute these cables into this system, but it wouldn't really be an apples to apples comparison between an RCA based cable and balanced cables. On top of that, the speakers that i'm using aren't exacly a good match for this system, but it at least gives me tunes and movies for now.
Yes, i can "cobble" at least one of the other RCA based systems together, but it will be nothing that i'm used to and won't be nearly as "dialed in" as i'd like. Yes, i can get a "feel" for what these cables do, but it wouldn't be a fair trial of their potential.
For sake of clarity in case you're wondering how i could have so many systems down, i damaged one of the speakers in my office system, possibly to the point of no repair.
I sold / traded my amp in my tube system a while back. No other tube amps on the premises. Want to build my own tube amp for this system, but it will have to wait until i can get some of my other projects caught up.
I have the speakers in my bedroom system pulled apart for crossover upgrades. As with the speakers in my HT system, i'm letting all of the caps "form" and then selecting them one by one i.e. the cream of the crop once they are fully settled in. This involves charging the caps up to or near rated voltage, letting them discharge naturally and then cycling them up to voltage again, several times over. From there, i can check to see which are discharging faster than others ( due to higher dielectric losses )and compare their measured values in terms of matched values. Yes, i buy TONS of extra caps for any project, which allows me to pick and choose as needed.
My main system is down due to problems with my midrange panels. I'm thinking of scrapping them, but don't know if i want to attempt rebuilding them or if i'm going to try and replace them with something else i.e. a commercial offering.
Yes, i'm doing more work on the gear than listening lately. Given that i've also got a PA system that i'm building for a local band in my free time, my own personal projects are coming about even slower than normal and i'm not exactly "fast" to begin with.
Flex: Great post. Thank you for presenting another well thought out and reasonable summary of the situation.
Psychic: I agree to a certain extent. That is, much of the technology that we have today was derived through scientific research conducted for military purposes. If it didn't come from the military, it came from deciphering alien technology : )
Twl: standardizing input and output impedances on components wouldn't be hard to do and / or drastically compromize the sound quality of any given design. This would be a HUGE step forward and get rid of many of the variables that account for the difference in sonics with interconnects that many encounter.
As far as standardizing speakers, that would be a good one. No real way to do that as far as i can see. While you could have standardized impedances, etc... i think that the designers would be more worried about meeting the certification specs in terms of input impedances and levels of reactance rather than achieving the best performance possible. As you mentioned, speakers like this might be good for those that want a "plug & play" system, but would probably not be best suited for those seeking optimum performance. Sean >
Sean with most speakers out there having their crossovers dangling on the positive leg of the amplifier and nothing on the negative side of the amp would you not think this imbalance is more of an issue than the cable impedance seen by the same amplifier? Tom
Sean, I hope you are still watching this thread, I had a quick question, which is just barely on topic! I'm doing an internal rewire on Maggie 3.6's and also replacing caps/inductors. I'm looking round for good hookup wire to replace the cheap crappy stuff that Magnepan use. Since I'm using Goertz speaker cables (these are still breaking in, but are sounding a little better each day), I thought about using similar cable internally. I spoke with Goertz and they can custom make a single conductor version of their MI 1 cable, which is similar in design to the heavier guage MI3. It's quite pricey, at $264 for a 50' spool. Can you see any potential downside in using this kind of cable internally. I actually think it would be quite easy to work with, they sell a 'notching tool' that cuts a notch out of the end of the wire and turns it into a spade connection!...talk about minimizing soldered joints. Would appreciate your expertise to hopefully help me avoid a potentially expensive and time consuming blunder.
Tom: What you bring up is a good point and something that most people never really think about. I have often wondered about the effects of "everything on one side of the line" type crossovers in the past. I have discussed this with my Brother at times, but we've never actually taken any type of measurements on stuff like this.
While most will argue that "it's an AC signal, so the amp sees the same load regardless of what polarity the crossover is on", that is only true of a Class A amp. That's because the Class A output stage is conducting both sides of the AC waveform. In comparison, a Class AB amp would typically have different types of output devices conducting each individual half ( positive and negative ) of the waveform being reproduced. As such, the Class B amp would see a non-linear load due to having all of the crossover components on the positive leg of the waveform whereas the negative leg has a shorter signal path with a reduced parts count / reduced reactance level to deal with. The ideal thing would be to divide the parts count evenly between both legs, providing both halves of the waveform with a reasonably common load.
Given the differences in electrical characteristics of the various devices used for each "rail" of the amps output polarity, it's no wonder that most amps, which are low level AB circuits, demonstrate different measurements ( levels of electronic stability ) and sonics into various loads. This could be part of the reason why Class A amps tend to sound "more cohesive" and less "disjointed" than Class B amps and do so more consistently with different loads. That is, a Class A output stage is always conducting and sees all of the load whereas an AB output stage sees half of the load without equal levels of the crossover network's reactance equally distrubuted between them. I would think that such an approach would help an amp to offer better stability into a wider range of loudspeakers AND reduce non-linearities in the amp when recovering from overload / momentary saturation.
There's a LOT to think about in the question that Tom brought up and the response that i just posted. I've never really seen anyone go into depth on the subject and it may help to explain a lot of things that are somewhat "unexplainable". That in itself is food for thought on a whole 'nother topic / thread.
None the less, maintaining a consistent nominal impedance for the entire circuit should theoretically ( and in my experience ) produce better results. The fact that most all of my amps operate in Class A for a longer than average period of time may also help things out. Others that have high bias AB or "pure" Class A amps are also in the same boat. Amps running in low level AB or straight Class B would probably be more susceptable to the aforementioned problems with "one polarity" crossovers coming into play. If you're wondering how this specific scenario applies to your system, if your amp idles anything below VERY "warm" to the touch with no signal applied, your amp is not a high bias unit. That would make it either a very low level AB amp or a straight B. This assumes that you're not running some type of "high efficiency" aka "switching amp", which typically idle cool as a cucumber.
With all of that in mind and as most that have read more than a few of my posts should know, i typically prefer "direct drive". That is, amplifier / speaker cable / driver with the crossover duties being taken care of upstream of the amplifier electronically. This removes the aforementioned "problem" out of the equation along with resolving all kinds of other situations. The difference between "direct drive" aka using a good quality electronic crossover and using the same amps / speakers with passive crossovers between them is pretty staggering to say the least.
Rooze: I see nothing wrong with what you want to do. Before buying anything else though, drop me an email with the specifics of what you need. I have some smaller sections of MI-1 that i may be able to help you out with. No promises though as i have to dig it up and see how much i have. I purchased some cables that were damaged and ended up trimming some short sections off during the repair. This "might" be enough for what you need to accomplish your desired goals.
Taking that a step further though, couldn't you just have Goertz build some inductors with the values that you needed with longer leads coming in and out of the inductors themselves? This would leave you with even fewer connection points and a more direct signal path. I don't know if you had considered this, but it would be the simplest and purest way to achieve your desired goals.
As far as "break-in" goes with this cable, i think it is more a matter of your ears adjusting to what you are hearing than the cables themselves "changing parameters". After all, you've only got one conductor per polarity with minimal amounts of a high grade dielectric. There's not much potential for the cabling to shift around internally, altering the impedances and / or the dielectric to change spacing or density, etc...
Out of curiosity, did you receive / install the Zobel networks? Sean >
Sean the speakers I currently use have series wired crossovers. Every signal feed this type of design would have to be sent to the drivers unlike a parallel design which I think dumps unused signal to ground.Unused signal would then be feed back to the amp and must create some type of noise or aberration, deleterious to music..Tom
Tom: This is a very interesting subject, but it would probably be best off in it's own thread. While speaker cables are involved in the amplifier / crossover / speaker interphase, we are getting WAY off topic here. Sean >
Yet another bit o' information regarding ribbon cables-
We've had some discussion of Alpha-Core and Magnan upthread. I didn't realize until recently that Audio Magic (the folks who also make the 'Stealth' power conditioners) manufacture silver ribbon cables (both speaker and interconnect).
Not cheap, but generally on par pricewise with equivalent Alpha-Core silver products.
I'll refer anyone interested to the Audio Magic website-
I just received the latest 'Cable Company' newsletter, which mentions that Audio Magic is introducing their new 'TriniumXL' ribbon interconnects- some kind of copper/silver/gold alloy ribbon.
Might be a good time to keep an eye open on closeouts of older/used products.
As always, FYI and FWIW. I haven't heard any of these in a system.
Check the thread at: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=30116
I have no affiliation with Grover Huffman but have personal experience with his cable products. They are in my opinion unbeatable for the price and have bettered a number of better known products costing much more.
The Empress Phono Interconnects are the finest cables made. I have upgraded from the SRII cables. The Empress uses the same internal wiring; however, the shielding common to virtually all Phono ICs is a metal type shield. Unfortunately, the SRIIs are so revealing and transient rich that the metal shielding elevates record noise and blurs timing, etc. relative to the Empress ICs. The new carbon shielding is non-metallic/non-magnetic and serves the same purpose but with extremely superior results. The Empress removes all of the noise inherent in common shielding designs and provides the SRII wiring to sing music sweeter than I have ever heard. This is a revolutionary change in phono cable sound. Grover and Michael have invented the ideal phono cable (and I=ve tried dozens of brands and types over the years). Analog is king with the Empress. (Digital remains the queen of sound with the Empress unshielded ICs, it can=t outdo analog). My friends come over and salivate at the sound of my system since I upgraded to Empress cables (although they always enjoyed Grover=s ICs before). My wife agrees that her rock records have the best vocal sound she has heard recorded or live. It=s difficult not to listen for hours into the night. My advice is to purchase the line stage to amp ICs first, then the analog (if you have it), then another pair for CDs. I also purchased Empress ICs for my Alesis Masterlink CD burner-unbelievable, great CDs from all analog sources.
I feel I am providing a necessary service to all you audiophiles and music lovers out there reading this. You will feel that the biggest bargain you have made is in purchasing the Empress ICs. You will change your equipment before you will change these wires. I am an amateur musician, music lover and audiophile (without the high end gear pretensions, quality always over snob appeal).
Caveat Emptor, a truly bad recording will be just that much worse sounding with the Empress Phono ICs - you can hear the electronics used in recording and cutting records, the ICs are that revealing. I heard bad cutter head amps and noisy microphone pre-amps revealed on previously okay sounding records. Now they show how bad they really are. On the bright side, most of my 17,000 LPs sound good to great. Average sounding records which may have restricted dynamics, highs, lows, etc. are just that much more interesting with better timing, openness and transients to reveal the essence of the music. Good music is just that more interesting and musically involving.
While I can appreciate an enthuiastic review of an excellent product, the following statement is pure hokum:
"Unfortunately, the SRIIs are so revealing and transient rich that the metal shielding elevates record noise and blurs timing, etc. relative to the Empress ICs. The new carbon shielding is non-metallic/non-magnetic and serves the same purpose but with extremely superior results."
Effective EM shielding uses effective conductive materials; carbon is not an effective conductor.
I would suggest the excellent performance of these cables is due to some other physical property of the design (excellent conducting material, novel conductor geometry, etc.).
Mprime: Don't start bad-mouthing carbon or a certain manufacturer will start crying "foul" and calling you names.
It is possible that the carbon does act as a shield and at the same time, is less intrusive due to the lack of conductivity & magnetic properties. As i've mentioned for many years now, shielding is beneficial IF properly applied. Most shields are NOT properly applied. Minimizing the amount of shielding while still offering a small amount of "blocking" via the carbon might be a reasonable trade-off between a lower noise floor and a lack of dynamic amplitude related smearing. Sean >
Fair enough, Sean (though attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing).
My first order understanding of shielding is akin to a Faraday cage (I have yet to see one made out of carbon). Or more precisely, shielding is a function of a material's skin depth, which - while a decaying exponential inside the material - is driven by the material's conductivity and permeability (for a given frequency). Therefore, how does an inefficent conductor act as an effective shield?
"attempting to reconcile claims with physics is not bad-mouthing"
Tell that to the guys that cry every time you try to discuss "scientific facts" vs their "bold claims". Manufacturers that sell snake oil don't like facts or bright lights that expose them for what they are. After all, didn't you know that physics has no place in "high end" audio. Physics went out of date years ago : )
As far as shielding goes, the main factors are depth, coverage area and materials used. As you mentioned, one can smother a device in a given material, but that doesn't mean that material doing the smothering is actually effective as a shield. Then again, one can also use much less of another material, and if properly placed, achieve phenomenal results in terms of shielding.
These factors can be put to work for us though IF we know how to manipulate the variables properly. That is, some materials are quite effective at blocking RF but are near useless at base-band frequencies. Since we don't want our AC signals "contaminated" with RFI, and at the same time, we don't want to interfere with the normal rise and fall of the current induced magnetic field that occurs at low frequencies, it IS possible to have the best of both worlds. I'm not saying that one can do this with carbon or any other specfific material, i'm just saying that a "less efficient" shield isn't always "useless" under specific situations. Think about this as it is something that many manufacturers / DIYer's overlook. Sean >
To offer closure, in order to achieve the same EM shielding as a typical conductor, carbon must be 500 to 1000 times thicker than such conductors. From this factual statement, one may observe different designs and see how their claims reconcile with physical facts. For example, one may look at PAD products and notice that while they take an 'unconventional' approach to shielding, the design is consistent with their chosen material properties (i.e. it is a *significantly* thicker cable).
Again, this is not to trash or bad-mouth any particular manufacturer, but it is an honest attempt to reconcile product claims with basic physics.
Dodgealum, Look into Virtual Mode cables, www.virmode.com. I've used many different types, far too many to list, and have settled with these. For what you are looking to spend on used, Brad can set you up with new. Good-luck, Rodge
I totally agree with Jond's recommenation of the new ILLUME' interconnect by RS Audio Cables. The new design of connectors by Eichmann really impresses me. I have owned cables costing 2-3 times more than the ILLUME' but feel this cable has brought my system to a higher level than any interconnect I have owned before. The ILLUME' is a teflon coated,twisted silver wire with a very nice looking jacket. The Eichmann silver plugs (RCA's) are made of a hard plastic with the only metal being the plug that goes in the input/output and a small silver stub for return. For $150/meter the ILLUME' is a freaking steal! The Silver Eichmann plugs retail for $25/each alone. Eichmann also offers a copper plug for $10/each. Reportedly,the Eichmann plugs are very easy to install on existing interconnects. I wouldnt bother though.The ILLUME' is a great cable. The focus,clarity and bass are superb.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
