No one actually knows how to lculate what speaker cable they need
It goes back to cable manufaturars, mostly provide no relevant data! to sales and the users. None will answer this! Whay do you think that you own now the optimal cable to your setup? I think I've figured it out.
Some get hysteric about 0.999% purity in cooper wire vs. a 0.9999%! At a
time some way bigger issues are hidden below the cover of our equipment.
None is treated for directionality, cryogenic, skin effect or high
purity cooper. They are all standard wires and PCBs.
Most so called hi-end cables, pretentiously use superior materials and
look are practically poor conductors for the task of most amplifiers (thin
wires). Those are not a match and never been calculated for the task. My idea,
of having the optimum conductor (calculated) from materials that are not so pretentious
or superior (by purity or any other crap), do the job and get fantastic
results. It is time to weak up and faces this reality.
1.
Let's check what the threshold of our audible
ability is. The Hi-Fi STD used to be -3dB which is half the amplitude. That’s a
lot.
On personal tests with a 1/9 DSP octave parametric EQ the threshold was
at -0.5dB.
A 0.1% in tolerance converted into decibels is -0.00869dB. No way you
hear that.
2.
Conductivity is
1/resistivity. Conductivity is measured in SI, Resistivity in Ohm.
A resistor of 0.1 ohm has a conductivity of
10 SI.
3.
When you get a 0 AWG cable,
that has a 0.1% loss due to none purity dos not equals to a 14 AWG that has a
resistance of 2.52 Ohms per 1000m, vs. a 0 AWG that has a resistance of 0.093
ohms per 1000m. This ratio is of x27 times or 2,700% (not 0.1%)!
So far, those who gave it a try, say I'm right. What would be your
explanation to that, with your theory…? (At a time you have no idea what is my
formula!)
No matter how good you get, beyond the standard purity of 99.90%. All the difference in conductivity is below 0.1% and no one would notice an audible difference in such a small difference in conductivity.
The whole issue of hearing a difference, in the context of everything else going on in a home audio system, becomes even more incredible when you consider many audio companies (and many cable manufacturers) still use brass (or another low conductivity alloy) in their connectors......that's right, your new $27K Lamm M1.2 Reference monoblocks use "brass" binding posts! Amazingly, they still sound great.
Another example is most banana connectors, which are made from a copper alloy such as brass, bronze, or beryllium copper. Those three alloys have an associated range of conductivity of about 20 to 50 percent
of IACS (International Annealed Copper Standard). I believe the best of that group is Grade E phosphor bronze at about 48% IACS - Furutech uses that metal. If you can find connectors made from tellurium copper, they are rated much higher, at
about 93-94% IACS, which is close to the conductivity of pure copper (i.e., about 100% of IACS). There are a few banana connectors I know of that are advertised as being made from copper - KLE and Xhadow, and Furez that are reportedly made from tellurium copper.
b4icu: "All the difference in conductivity is below 0.1% and no one would notice an audible difference in such a small difference in conductivity."
You see, this is the point I take issue with. Conductivity includes resistivity as a factor. This factor is the main one you use in your so-called calculations for high DF amps. I stated long ago that the contributory resistance of a normal 12, 14, 18 gauge speaker wire is going to contribute INSIGNIFICANTLY, i.e., "...such a small difference in conductivity."
This is why the use of jumper cable sized conductors as speaker wires is a fool’s errand. This is not high current, low voltage, direct current. Never will be, nada, rien, zilch, nyet, null, void, disintegrated.
You cannot, Have it, Both ways.
Have a great day. Oh, and please review why Edison failed with DC and Tesla prevailed with AC.
Cooper hasn't changed much since the big bang 13.5B years ago. It
changed even less since 1980's till now. No matter how good you get, beyond the
standard purity of 99.90%. All the difference in conductivity is below 0.1% and
no one would notice an audible difference in such a small difference in
conductivity. I'm sorry if my say spoils your sales. I realize that when
this thread will take off, you might be out of business.
What is that say of cryogenically treated or controlled directionality are
doing in my thread? Those are some of the biggest schemes of the cables
industry. What about doing some burn in and the skin effect? They can help too,
after deep mud walking in total ignorance.
Why bringing back your long rotten urban myths after they were grounded
to thin dust?
The difference between OFC and cooper is: "0.02 to 0.04%".
"The main grade of copper used for electrical applications is
electrolytic-tough pitch (ETP) copper (CW004A or ASTM designation C11040). This copper is at least 99.90%"
This is the cooper wires industry standard! So a 0.02 to 0.04%
in conductivity, over the "at least 99.90% purity", is
so negligible that it is absolutely unimportant for a speaker cable or any
audio cable! The say had spread like a plague, when there is no disease
and no need for a vaccine! A good sales guy had thrown this "barren say"
to the audiophiles, who swallowed it and now can't get rid of it.
It is amazing what this industry can convince you pay for, without any
justification.
The gauge figure I’m providing is the optimal. However, even if you get a cable with some impurities in the cooper, it may change the nominal resistance by what? -10%
That’s still O.k. Some of those ridiculous pretentiousness exotic purities and endings are not so important after all. They are more of a marketing tool to segregate one maker from the crowd. At the end, it is the resistance value that matters, and it may have a tolerance. Do not buy the pompous says of those who have an interest to promote their merchandize. You pay much and get almost nothing for it.
As you are going to give it a try (congratulations) please be kind to share the process and the results with us. When that will come, please do it in the format I asked for. Thanks.
"Did you try a powerful SS amp with high DF and thick cables attached to your Thile?"
Yes, I used to own a Krell 400cx amp that I used to drive the Thiels. It sounded ok but not as spacially defined and three dimensional as the tubed Manleys.
"Even if you did, and you like your sound, that’s O.k. My remarks were pure technical."
Like Geoff and Wolf I have recently gone back to my solid core cables. Not AQ but Harmonic Technology that uses multiple, thin, OCC copper wire individually insulated with foamed PE. Just ordered some more, which I will use to run tfull 9 awg wires to each of my 8 speaker binding posts. I am seriously thinking of trying the large gauge thing just for fun and the linked Rockville cable at $25/12 feet looks like it could be perfect for the purpose.
I've spoken to Bill Low from Audioquest and he seems to really know his stuff, I trust his opinions (the ones I understand somewhat anyway), and like the sound my rig produces using his speaker cables. Been using his speaker cables for decades...in fact, it was a pair of his early cables that actually showed me there is a large sonic difference between speaker cables, and for that I'm, grateful...for this thread, not so much.
For what it’s worth, I’d never spoken to Michael before this thread, we didn’t know each other. I’m not some plant for his grand marketing plan. (Exactly what a plant would say, right?)
I approached him via PM about how to do this, what I’d need, and whether he’d be able to build and supply (for a fee). He said he would. Unfortunately his prices are beyond my reach so, with his help, I went DIY.
It improved the sound quality of my speakers (B&W 802N). Sounds are clearer and less congested. Continued listening and swapping back and forth reveals the same result. Others have said the same, including my wife.
For the £150 or so it cost me I would heartily recommend it. I upgraded from Van Dam blue speaker cable.
I stopped posting on the thread as everything that's being said is just getting shouted down by a very vocal few who are apparently unwilling to believe that there could possibly be something in this. I've been called an idiot, told that my cables were crap, and that they were oxidising (they're not). The improvements were put down to me swtiching from unterminated cable to terminated, at one point.
Personally I think it's to do with argument presentation. If this had been presented as "guys, I think I might have found something, have a go, what do you think..." we would have had a lot more traction. Much like happened in the Doug Schroder Method thread. It baffles me how that idea can be so lauded and recieved with open minds when this is just met with closed doors.
No doubt I'll get a bunch of responses explaining why I'm wrong and how I don't understand anything. I'm going back to lurking. If you want more info feel free to message me.
b4icuOP "You also didn't show a formula that would invalidate my idea...You didn't try it by yourself or listened to someone's system that did."
You are confused and disoriented to suggest, request, or demand that I show a formula to disprove you're formula which you refuse to share! That is beyond common sense, reason, and logic also you have no way of knowing what I have tried or listened to your claim otherwise is unfounded, presumptuous, and erroneous.
and then I could run 3.75 ft. lengths of two red and two black of each to my bi-wire speakers. I have a hydraulic crimp tool that has a die to accommodate 2 awg connectors so cutting and stripping the wire will be the most difficult part of the operation. Those copper ring connectors might actually fit over my binding posts by removing the nut, installing the copper ring over the post and then replacing the nut. About $70 to see what all the fuss is about. Oh, BTW, I ran the calculation and 2 awg is what I need.
b4icuOP"The formula: I’ll keep it to myself. It is not to be given away"
Well I don't think you can give it away anyway as has been demonstrated in this thread and you would not be able to sell, distribute or license your "formula" because it is just so much "mumbo jumbo" as Americans say!
The formula: I’ll keep it to myself. It is not to be given away. If you would read the thread, you would find more than one to be answered about the formula.
Your ideas of implementation of a 0 AWG DIY is up to you. You can see some solutions in this thread.
For some reason, you think that 0 AWG is good for all. Some need less (like 4 AWG or even less) and some need more, if the cable gets long or the DF goes really high.
Please be kind to pay attention that the AWG table is not double incrementing by 2 on each number of gauge. If a cable would require a 4 AWG for 2m length, it will be 1 AWG on a 4m length.
The part of what cable you need, I’ll calculate it for you, if you be kind to provide:
Amplifier’s model and brand.
Speaker cable length.
Speaker’s model and brand.
If you will read my answer to Mr. stevecham, there are some exceptions, regarding speaker technology and tube amplification. I’ll take care of that.
How do you take that requirement and turn it into a cable, is up to you. If so many cable makers from the industry used to do such cables, by your say, you might find one to buy. It must cost nickels as those are now left over’s. The last time I checked, those who may offer such a thick cable asked something north of $40k. But money should be no issue for a real audiophile that follows its ears. Common sense might be more difficult commodity to find!
The other way is to get a DIY project. There are plenty of options on eBay for cables. The problem is getting the ends fit a binding post. Some creative solutions were shared here, by Mr. keppertup and Mr. conradnash as well as with the sonic results. There might be more ways to do it. For anything thicker than 0 AWG, like 2x AWG or 4x AWG, a more difficult solutions will be required. It might also get more expensive…
To OP: Aside from all the posturing on this thread, I am curious about a couple of your ideas but have a couple of questions.
1. Where is this "formula"? I went back through two weeks of posts and still could find no formula, just multiple comments about basing the wire size on the amplifier and how "0 gauge" seems to usually work well, and also a couple of comments about needing thicker than 0 awg in cases where the SCs are longer. When I started to see other posts asking "where is the formula" I assumed going back further would be of no help. I would like to apply this formula to my situation and calculate what gauge wire I would need to meet your formula based on my SS amplifier.
2. I read your opinion about separating wires and assume your DIY results in running separate pos and neg wires from the amplifier to the speaker. Your point seems to be that this should resolve mutual inductance and that resistance (i.e., inverse of wire size) is the governing factor. Some manufacturers have done this (separated pos and neg wires) in the past but typically that approach has not seen long-term commercial success (low WAF?).
One way to get pretty close to your 0 awg would be to purchase 8/3 50A NEMA welding extension cord and then connect the three internal wires together and use a single run separately to each pos and neg terminal. Each post would then see just under 3 awg (i.e.,
3 x 8 awg ~ 3 awg)
To actually achieve 0 awg wire, I would probably purchase 0 awg battery jumper cable wire in the length I need and crimp a short, large gauge, lead-out wire to the jumper cable wire that would attach to my speakers and amp. I would run the two battery jumper cables separately with one going to each of the pos and neg posts.
Your (all of you) system is
a given. I have nothing to do with your choice of equipment.
The idea of speaker cables
to fit the DF has no significance when tube amplification with very low DF is
involved. So is your case. There were other guys who asked me, with tubes, I've
told them the same and they accepted. Please do too.
If such case occur (low DF),
it is not me to say it is not working for that, it is the math behind the idea.
As much as it works for high DF, it is not working for the low DF.
The speakers are not much
of a player in this game. Unless, they are not conventional. Even thou, in the
case of Mr. keppertup it worked very well.
I think that the name:
"speaker cables" are a mistake. They should be called amplifier
cables!
I do not want to get personal in this thread.
Except a few guys who need their daily dose of contemning my thread, for quite
a while, all other are welcome.
Speakers sensitivity or efficiency:
The range goes from the highest (106dB/w/m SPL) to the lowest (85dB/w/m SPL).
There might be exceptions, but this is the majority.
The combination of 88dB/w/m SPL sensitivity
with low impedance of 2.7 Ohms, makes the Thile a taught cocky to drive.
Understanding Damping Factor and its role
in the chain of amplification, cables and speakers:
If I would reflect the audio world into the
car's world, the amplifier would be the engine. The speakers would be the wheels.
For the power (watts) would be the engines HP. The DF is the engines torque.
The speaker cables would be the driveshaft.
We know that an engine with lots of HP but
low torque will not deliver the sporty drive experience. A powerful engine must
have both: the high HP and a high torque.
The fact, that tube amplification has a
problem with DF is an old issue, that been tackled by SS. It is even better
with class D but in a different way, not as with class A/B amplifiers.
Speaker cables as drive shaft, would present
a serial device with some flexibility to be the extension of the amp's DF. A
thin cable would be more flexible, and a thick one more rigid. Why would
someone like to get a car with a strong engine with fantastic torque and than ruin
it with a thin (flexible) driveshaft? To deliver the power from the engine to
the wheels with a high torque engine is like delivering the power of an
amplifier to the speakers from a high DF amplifier. It is about control! The
high DF is more control. A coil loaded speaker requires such control, to overcome
the reactive nature of a moving coil in a magnetic field (speaker structure).
That's the analogy. I hope it helped some to
better understand it.
This relation is not an empiric figure to
guess of find by trial. It is a figure that has values and can be calculated.
The calculation is telling with accuracy, what is the required cable for the
task.
Regarding your system, did you try some other
combinations like matching a very efficient and easy to drive, horn loaded
speaker with your Manelly?
Did you try a powerful SS amp with high DF
and thick cables attached to your Thile?
Even if you did, and you like your sound,
that's O.k. My remarks were pure technical.
b4icu: I did not call you a nazi and I'm sorry you completely misconstrued that; I attempted to compare, with poor humor perhaps, what from my perspective was an arbitrary rejection of being served by your formula, which you claimed was needed in order to gain optimal speaker coupling to an amp. You also rejected and insulted my selection of amp (tube) and speakers (88 dB is not an "insensitive" speaker if the industry average is 87 dB). Both my amps and speakers have been lauded as good products. You have never heard my system yet feel emboldened to tell this entire group that it must sound horrible because of some fundamental incompatibility or flawed design.
That episode of Seinfeld was written and produced by Jewish Americans. I was paraphrasing the use of that term in that pop-culture episode simply because your rejection of applying my stuff to your formula felt as if things didn't arbitrarily fit your expectations perfectly, then I need not apply. There is such a thing as catharsis.
Ok, my last post on this comical thread. OP has not provided any service or advice. Nothing in my system is wrong. In fact OP is absolutely wrong on all accounts because he has not heard our systems and claims they are not right. That is ridiculous. If OP's techniques are that good, he should have helped people by having a dedicated site or a firm to make and sell the cables at reasonable rates. I am sure that OP has doubts on his own techniques and wants people to experiment first. Wonder what reports he is talking about. Maybe all fabricated by himself for marketing purposes?
Lastly, I do not believe in foolish prophecies. Man, I don't want any advice from a guy who believes in prophecies.
My post got deleted also, and now I can't remember what I said but I suppose it was less than kind to the esteemed b4icu. Oops...however, to sum up, you should replace your silly speaker cables with gigantic jump starter cables, which seem to have an advantage from the fact that the battery terminal clamps should be able to grip your binding posts with aplomb! The does make me wonder if my AQ Rockets would work as jump starter cables...gotta get some clamps and test this...I have no problem with b4icu marketing his ideas as there's always room for comedy here, especially since Bo1972 has been somewhat inconsistent lately.
I am to share an idea, on speaker cables. That is a legitimate use of
this forum and thread. Audiogon are O.k. with that and are kind to host it for
over 11 pages. If you have a problem with that, you are welcome to approach them
and bring up your claims.
So far, I provided my service and help to all and for free.
For some, beyond their expectations!
The only thing I asked in return was sharing the results with us. Also
for free!
Maybe for the industry you represent, it is shocking and devastating. However,
the engineering part of this idea is rock solid and works well, for those who
tried it. So far, the reports support my say. I know it's disasters for you, as
they prove you wrong and me right. So if that would become a business, would it
be a problem for you? (I recognize some panic over the last 2-3 pages). Would
you like to place an offer for me not doing so?
Regarding your future predictions and assumptions, we have a say that: "The
prophesy was given to the fools".
Falls accusation! In your case (like with all who have tube
amplification with very low DF, or with none conventional speakers) the speaker
cables are not the same. This been stated up front of this thread. In your
particular case, I've told you that the speaker cables may be any, it won't
make a difference, in several occasions. I'm sorry you have a problem to
understand this. It is a bit arrogant and out of line to call me Nazi for that.
I'm Jewish, and six million of us were killed by the Nazi in the holocaust.
Eleven more were killed this week in Pittsburgh, for very similar reasons. Do
you understand how low you went for a speaker cable?
b4icu, Hi Michael, just to update you, 4AWG cables expect 7 Nov from Amazon. Spades and banana connectors stuck a warehouse in Oregon awaiting reset of password which I forgot. sorry for the delay
Ya, some business. If the OP doesn't approve of your amp/speaker combination he will refuse to help you. It's like a revisit of the Seinfeld soup nazi episode: "No Cables For You!"
Same here @mitch2 . Absolutely ridiculous claims in this thread. Like someone pointed out - OP is trying to market his ideas here, the same he did on another forum. Wonder when he is going to open up his business.
So sorry to hear that. Next time you buy some speakers, keep the
speakers and throw away the expanded polystyrene (EPS) packing materials, not
the other way around. EPS is too light for your cables. However, I'm sure your thin
cables are a perfect match to what you call speakers and tipped over…Could you please
share how you got to this amazing combination?
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.
