Mr. khiak
The
connectors you call BNC are not BNC!
GOLDMUND TELOS 600 : http://www.audiounion.jp/ct/detail/used/95826/
Or the last page of your GOLDMUND TELOS 600 RTFM.
BNC: https://www.iitk.ac.in/ibc/BNC.pdf
It looks more like an enlarge (not STD size, but very large) TNC.
GOLDMUND would be a good place to start with. I don't like this
"unique" approach. However, the TELOS 600 have also 4 ordinary binding posts.
I am kind of confused...how did you connect the GOLDMUND TELOS 600 with
your speakers till now?
|
For
all those who are in the process of getting a NEW cable that was calculated and recommended.
First,
good luck and thanks for the trust. I really hope that most of you, if not all, will end up happy and satisfied.
When
the time will come, to share your impression here, please do it in some
ordinary way:
> Specify your Amp and
speakers.
> Specify the previous cable
that was replaced: just gauge and length. Please avoid brand and model. Thanks. You may add how much that cable cost…
> Specify your new cable: gauge
and length. If other than was recommended, please notice what was recommended too.
Then
use your own words to describe your impression.
This
is important for all of us, to get the equipment and cables data, not only a
say of how good (or not) is the new cable.
Thank
you all in advance. Michael (b4icu).
|
Mr.
khiak
As
I already established a communication line with Goldmund and Mr. Rodolphe, I
posted him some questions regarding the Telos 600 special
speaker connectors.
I'll
share that with you as soon as he will reply.
We
never leave a wounded on the battlefield ! :-)
|
b4icu,
thank you so much Michael. If the 4 or 6 awg can be somehow attached to this coaxial connection of the amp, it will be wonderful. |
Dear b4icu,
I purchased 25 feet of 0 AWG form a supplier on eBay for $45 ($12 shipping) and four brass (supposedly gold plated) battery connectors ($7.49).
I constructed four five foot cables in just over one hour. Battery connectors were converted to spades with a cold chisel and wire cutters, cable was cut with a hacksaw and insulation stripped with the hacksaw. Spades were connected to Pass Labs 250.5 terminals (PL does not supply banana plug receptacles). I attached banana plugs to a two inch piece of silver plated 8 AWG wire. I hollowed out a holle in 0 AWG wire with a punch and did not remove insulation. I then inserted the stripped 8 AWG wire in hole and secured the assembly with a hose clamp around the insulation at the cable’s end.
The cables were attached to my thirty year old modified MG IIIa’s. The results are stunning. The amount of undistorted energy filling the room, is jaw dropping. I keep turning up the volume to levels that previously irritated my ears, and experience no irritation. In the modified lyrics of B.B. King, “The shrill is gone.” My wife is hearing new detail in cuts she has listened to many times before.
In my case, b4icu, you were absolutely correct, thank you (except for the part of you doubting ribbon speakers would be improved with installation of your design). I can’t wait to try the cables in one of my other systems that employs cone speakers.
I am am sure every case is different. Nevertheless, I encourage other hobbiest to test your theories.
Thank you for your generosity and patience.
All good wishes
|
Mr. keppertup
Thanks you. Thanks you again. Could you please help me out with some supporting information? I posted just above this: When the time will come, to share your impression here, please do it in some ordinary way: > Specify your Amp and speakers: Pass Lab 250.5 with Magnepan III's. > Specify the previous cable that was replaced: just gauge and length. (?)
Please avoid brand and model. Thanks. You may add how much that cable cost…
(?)
> Specify your new cable: gauge and length. If other than was: 0 AWG, 5 feet long recommended, please notice what was recommended too. (if different from
0 AWG, 5 feet long) Would you please be kind to do that for me? Thanks.
I’m really happy that it worked for you. I didn’t say it won’t work for none coil loaded speakers, I just claimed it is different. On the theory and the drowing board, it is.
Some pictures of your cables would be more than welcome. Thanks.
For the record:
> The same results would apply if you turn the cables direction! :-)
> The same results would apply if you say they were cryogenic treated! :-)
> If you make another set, at the time this set "goes through" a so called burn in, and then after some time you will connect the new cable, it will sound exactly the same. No "burn-in" excuse is required when the results are: jaw dropping. It sounds good from the first moment. Trust me on that.
Wish you lots of hours playing your music and discover tones of new sound bit’s you never know it’s there. As I said, you were listening to only some of your system potential before. Now you are listening to ALL of it. It is not only your ears that approve it, but some engineering calculations, I stand behind it. Something that never been done before with most systems. Welcome to the club. Thanks you again. For all other, who are yet in the process getting there, it might be a nice clue of what is comming at you, when you are ready. God bless you. |
"I’ll do say, that there is a no much sense in matching a Thiel CS2.4 to a Manley NEO 250! https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs24-loudspeaker-measurementshttps://www.manley.com/hifi/n250/That is a 4 ohms speaker and goes down to 2.73 ohms at 600Hz ! with 88dB/w/m SPL. one of the most difficult to drive. I hope you enjoy the Manley NEO 250 1.5% THD and its 14.8 DF vs. 2.73 ohms... In your case the cables are the last to worry about." This simply proves my point. You know NOTHING about anything with regard to HiFi. But keep on plugging your 0 AWG battery cables, which also proves my point. |
Don't
worry Mr. stevecham. It's all good.
There is a say in Russia, that the local made shoes are very good.
Until you buy an imported brand...(I'm not from Russia!)
|
|
Mr. keppertup Thank
you aging for your sharing.
How to post a picture:
Please use this site: https://imgur.com/a/42eh3h1
Press the green "New post" on top.
Drag your picture to the opened window.
Copy the URL on the right side of your picture and "copy" it to your
post.
My two cents on your brave act:
Those were the best $45 (+$12) you ever invested in your audio system or ever spent.
You
talk of over $2,000 spent on speaker cables with no much audible benefit. Then spend
$45 and : "The results are stunning".
For
the record, your cables been improved by X20. I assume that your description of
the new sound tells the rest of the story…
For
that reason, a silver cable of the same gauge, would add 5.4% over the x20 times
you already have. It will be un noticed, but cost way more than $45.-
Thanks
in believing me. Many didn't. Some of the none believers, you can find on a parallel threads, getting banana to keep
spreading their outrageous believes.
Just
imagine, what you were missing till this thread.
People
always under estimated the speaker cables. It was something between getting a
wire from the cheapest spool in the shop, or investing big in cables that never
delivered.
I
wish this change will spread. I hope that audiophiles will realize the truth
behind this subject. I regrat all the ignorance, urban legends and tones of
money thrown out for absolutely nothing!
Those,
who invested big in their system, deserve to enjoy all that goodness. Mostly,
because they never did till now!
Many
keep upgrading, at a time they have the right sound system but the wrong speaker
cable. They keep spending at a time they are only $45 from accomplishment.
I
hope that your description will help others to do a step toward the right
speaker cable and join the experience. There is little to lose and a lot to
gain.
I'm
sorry for all those who tried fighting this idea, for no particular reason,
rather than give it a descent try.
By
the time we gather more impressions, it will be a weak up call for them, to do some
changes with their attitude.
Be careful
with the volume, ribbon tend to clip at high volume. It can also clip your amp.
If
you like it loud and live like, try a Klipsch Horn. I own a pair of Forte –II. Nothing
I ever heard, can reproduce a drum cession live like. The Forte –II does.
Thanks
agin.
|
Thanks for sharing. Nice ideas on the terminations. Love to see pics. |
Can someone provide a link for a reasonably priced crimping tool that can handle 1/0 - 3/0 AWG cable termination? Don’t want to spend hundreds. |
Granny ring,
If you use the terminal ring/spade linked above, you can crimp the terminal with 8” channel locks. The medal is soft. Alternatively, Amazon has $15 crimping tools, including one that has a cradle and piston you hit with a hammer. I suggest you try the channel locks first, allowing one of the tabs on the terminal to overlap the other. To keep the wire from coming out of the terminal, I bent over few of the strands before crimping. I achieved a very tight and secure fit.
Good Luck
|
This is utterly fascinating. |
I may split the cable into two equal portions then both crimp and solder. A good soldering iron would flow solder without too much difficulty and quickly. I like the termination process of crimp and solder. I would simply stack the two spades at the binding post. Still thinking on this. |
Good
luck to all of you, building your new cables.
Hope
you'll enjoy the process as well as the results.
Thanks
for the sharing.
|
b4icu,
Michael, presently both ends are connected by spades.
I just went to douglasconnection.com introduce by grannyring to purchase 8 banana and 8 spade connectors size for 4AWG wire. On checkout, they only ship to a US address. I am not from US, so I contacted them by email to see if they can help. Waiting for their response.
I plan to use banana at the Telos 600 end and spade at the speaker end. So I run 4awg 1.5m to mid/high and another 4awg 1.5m to the woofer. I cannot find special coaxial connector for the amp.
I have another Telos 600 connected to the Revel Voice 2 Centre speaker, should I use the same 4AWG 1.5m?
My good friend have a Passlabs 350.8 to Wilson Alexia Speakers 2.5m. Kindly advise for his cable size. Thank you so much for all your help. We would have save lots of money if we know you earlier. Have a good day.
|
Mr. khiak
1.
The Bi-wire thing is not of
any advantage over single wire, as long their combined cross section (or gauge)
of the bi-wire equals to the single wire. It was a trend with a story (another
urban myth blown away) in the 90's.
2.
All Telos 600 amp's
need the same speaker cable as I've told you, as it depends on the Dumping
Factor of the amp. and not the load (the speaker). That apply to all amp's
you have.
3.
Pass labs 350.8 (all X
series have the same DF) Dumping Factor is 150. A bit poor, but it is what it is. He needs a 4 AWG for the 2.5-3m
length.
A Lovely Setup. I made a set of cables to my friend here who has a Pass Lab 250.8 and a B&W 802D speaker. https://imgur.com/a/LF0vyGZ
https://imgur.com/a/42eh3h1
4.
Who said it's coming for
free? :-)
You and your friend are kindly requested to share your data and impressions of
the sound with your new cables ref. to the once replaced.
I hope you can do that for me…? Thanks.
With the "special coaxial connector for the Telos 600 amp.", I
contacted Mr. Rodolphe from Goldmund, Swiss just before the
weekend. I'll most likely get his educated answer tomorrow (Mon.).
He would rather specify this special connector and a source, or offer a Goldmund's
matching connectors.
I'll
post his replay here on this thread for you.
|
|
Methinks he doesn’t know what bi wire is. A myth is as good as a mile.
|
I may be mistaken here, but isn’t the net effect of this and bi-wiring the same? My understanding is that bi-wiring
connects one pair of terminals at the amp end along four lengths of wire, connecting to four terminals at the speaker end. Given that both pairs of cable carry full range signals, what you’re effectively doing is increasing the gauge of the cable that’s delivering the signal to the speaker.
And that’s the same principle we’re talking about in this thread.
What b4icu is doing is setting a lower limit on the gauge of the cable that connects the speakers and amp. He’s been saying all along (I think) that it doesn’t matter whether you use one cable, two, or 10, as long as the combined gauge meets that lower limit, you’ll get the improvement.
Now, whether you agree that the DF of an amp is in any way an indicator of what cable you need, or whether b4icu has a formula that works, or even whether there’s a theoretical maximum gauge of cable for an amps DF (why not just go 8/0 and be done with it), is a separate point. As are cable weaves and twists, insulation material, termination solder material, etc.
My point is, like for like, bi-wired 12 awg should be the same as a single cable of 9 awg, so why wouldn’t upping the gauge to 0 have a bigger difference? Or is there some benefit to carrying the same full range signal along two cables?
Happy to be schooled, but I’m also going to try this idea out. |
conradnash10-14-2018 10:27am I may be mistaken here, but isn’t the net effect of this and bi-wiring the same? My understanding is that bi-amping connects one pair of terminals at the amp end along four lengths of wire, connecting to four terminals at the speaker end ... Yes, you are mistaken. In a two-channel system, biamping uses two stereo amplifiers (or four monoblocs), with a separate amplifier channel used for each LF and HF section of each speaker system. Ideally, this is done using an active crossover between the preamp and the amplifiers, so that each amp "sees" only the frequencies it will be driving. |
I understand. I mistyped. I mean bi-wiring. I’ll edit my message so it’s consistent. |
Bi Wire
The base to the approach came from Bi-Amp (or Tri Amp.), in which the
crossover was bypassed. An electronic cross is placed between the Pre and the
powers. Each band that drives each of the units of that speaker is getting its
specific audio band, its specific amplification and speaker cables. This is
better than the ordinary method, because the speaker's crossover contributes
some distortion that is avoided by the Bi/Tri amp.
Some manufacturers came up with an idea (not really works in real!) that
if it's not Bi amp, it can be Bi-wired. The claim was, that the low Fr. Currents
related to the woofer, won't affect the currents of the high Fr of the midrange
and the tweeter. The Bi-wire became over night popular and most speaker makers
provided two sets of binding posts and some flat jumpers.
This approach was good, if such a speaker owner would like to go Bi-amp
without the need in some cases to replace the speaker or drill holes for more binding posts. The internal cross should be removed and
bypassed in most cases.
If a simulation is run on a computer SW called "Spice" (most
common for analog HW simulation with design) and the two options: Bi wire and single wire)
are run, with identical speaker wires (represented by resistors of small
value), the result of a single wire is better than a bi-wire.
To understand the why, a Bi-wire approach separates the current loops.
So the low Fr. Loop, that drives most of the current, by nature of the audio
band behavior, has only 1/2 of the cross section available, vs. one single thicker
wire. The high Fr. Loop has the same cross section available, even it does not
need that much. So you get one cable that is not really been fully used and one
that is under sized for the requirement.
Digging deeper, for the Amp. it is the same.
So is for the speaker. A wire can pass all frequencies as long thier total cuerrent does not exced the wires capabity. We most likely far from that in Audio.
You just have a less good speaker cable with the bi-wire. I would like
to believe that we are gathered here to improve that part in our system.
|
On the other hand, who really cares what SPICE says about bi wiring. None other than John Atkinson of Stereophile reports otherwise. So, this appears to be one of those talkers vs doers type arguments. 😬 Or, perhaps a measurements vs listener argument. 😛
“Some audiophiles feel that bi-wiring produces an audible improvement over standard single cabling. For example, John Atkinson, writing in Stereophile, states that he observes "subtle but important" differences, particularly in reduction of treble hardness and improvement in bass control in one review.”
And this from Definitive Technology,
“Does doubling the connections double the sound quality?
Bi-wiring is intended to minimize impedance differences between high and low frequencies and its impact on the overall sound you experience. The result is an improvement in the midrange that many enthusiasts believe is significant enough to justify running the additional cable. You may not double the quality of your playback, but you will likely notice a major boost in clarity.”
There’s also this from Polk Audio, who knows something about speakers,
”What is it?
Bi-wiring is the using separate speaker wire connections to split the signal between high and low frequencies.
What does it accomplish?
The theory behind bi-wiring is that it can elevate a great sounding speaker and produce subtle, enjoyable, improvements in overall sound quality. In a sense, bi-wiring is to speaker connections as “star grounding” is to electronics connections.
When a piece of audio equipment uses a single circuit grounding point for all electronic sections as opposed to connecting them in a “daisy-chain” fashion, this is referred to as “star grounding.” The integrity of each ground path is maintained by individual connections to a low impedance point.
The same concept is applied when bi-wiring your audio system. Each “section” of your speaker is independently connected to the low impedance point (output transistors) in your receiver or amplifier. The effects of bi-wiring have been described as “lifting a veil from the mid-range” and that “voices seem clearer, more distinct, and less muffled.””
|
Mr. keppertup Thanks for the photos. As it does the job, I can’t comment on functionality :-) May I please comment on your workmanship? Ref. to your 2nd picture, that the two ends can be seen better: On Spade side - you have a thread that was not captured by the crimp and is lose. Spades need maintenance as the binding post loose grip in time. This end could use a short shrinking sleeve to cover some of the cable and some of the exposed cooper sleeve. For the safety and for the good looking. Your other end, with the short low gauge wire stacked in the 0 AWG: is a nice idea. I’m not so sure if that would hold in the long term, if the 0 AWG weight is hanging on it. Here is mine for ref. was posted on page 2 of this thread: https://imgur.com/a/qwcIbTn
|
@geoffkait , absolutely. While the logic and absolute-ness (in audio, indeed!) might not be agreed on by everyone, I'm an advocate of trying it and seeing how I get on. If bi-wiring has claims to work (ignoring any bi-amping, whether active or passive) then swapping the cable for one double thick run instead of two thinner runs should achive a similar effect. Maybe that's what's being seen here? Either way, agreeing that bi-wiring might work but this can't seems like a contradictory argument.
Again, I'm putting aside the argument presentation, the use of DF as a variable, and the maths involved in the calculation. I'm just talking about increasing the cable size, which is all we're really doing.
@b4icu, can we see inside those cables to see what's under the heat shrink? I'd be interested in to see how you've stepped down from 0 awg to bananas. Doesn't the thinner bridge cable act as a limiter? The weak link in the chain, if you will?
|
Mr. geoffkait
You, Mr. John Atkinson or others you may quote, never got the
speaker cable thing right from the first time! so they added a second wire, of
the same gauge to the single and the sound improved...
This is what this thread is all about. As if you read this thread thoroughly,
you could get a slight impression of Mr. keppertup on his sharing of implementing
this idea. A beautiful one.
I'm sure you would rather keep sticking to your false ideas
and a limited sound quality (you most likely call high end) because Mr. John
Atkinson or others said so. Enjoy both.
If you would get that, many of your falls accusations could be
saved, with many of your postures posts and so you would earn less points...Sorry about
that.
I've
seen you on a parallel thread about the burn in, and I felt really bad for you.
|
Mr. conradnash
Sorry, the one you see serves my friend in Vancouver BC. If you live
nearby, I can get you acquainted.
I have no pictures of that as I never thought to be asked for.
The wire between the thick 0 AWG cable and the banana plug is of 8 AWG.
I really believe that this banana plug is the best possible electrical and physical
way to connect between it and a binding post.
The banana plug is soldered thoroughly to that 8 AWG wire. 100% of its
inside perimeter and 100% of the 8 AWG wire for the entire common length
(about 2cm long).
The other end was soldered to the spade (cable shoe) that is of way
thicker and more firm than the one Mr. keppertup has. It is soldered on
both sides of the shoe (over the center hole). The shoe is crimped on two
presses with a 70 DIN size tool.
Than the ends were worn, with a black sleeve (larger diameter) on
the thick cable, the shoe and the edge of the 8 AWG cable. A second sleeve
(white) is covering that edge and all the 8 AWG wire and secures (permanently)
the banana plug sleeve from open.
This structure ensures the best electrical and mechanical construction,
and it is very strong. It took me a while to figure it out…For the record, I
also have a perfect solution to use two and four 0 AWG wires in one cable, for
those who really need that.
|
|
Mr. geoffkait
Did you notice that the bottom of your ref. was written or approved
by AudioQuest that is a cable maker? Do I need to explain you why Bi-wires
are better for AudioQuest than a single wire? (I'll give you a clue: they
make double the money on bi-wire).
Would I base an argument on a biased quote with interest, rather a scientific approach?
I rather stick to my explanation (technical, supported by electronics knowledge
and proven by simulation) than your lovely words that guide nowhere. Do you
still believe that the earth is flat?
Your lovely description of bi wire could be also applied to a chair or a
table. It would work the same.
|
Yes, exactly! Audioquest is a cable maker. And you are not. Polk is a speaker maker and you are not. Definitive Technology is a speaker maker and you are not. See the pattern? Furthermore, there is no financial advantage for a speaker company or an audiophile magazine editor to promote bi wiring. Hey-loo!
|
Mr. geoffkait
All
the respected makers you have mentioned above have an interest. They make a
living out of that, the more they sale the better. That’s called a biased testimony.
I
don't.
See
the pattern?
|
Bringing this back to topic, b4icu, did you say that this doesn't work on class D amplifiers? If so, does that also go for class T as well? And what about for budget receivers and speakers, for example, I have this amp: https://www.cnet.com/products/sony-str-dh820/specs/ and B&W 684 speakers. What would the optimal cable be for that pairing, and, in your opinion, would it be worth it? As for bi-wiring, I'm going to test my current cable in a bi wire set up. If that offers an improvement over single wire with a solid silver jumper cable then I'll compare that against the 0 awg when it arrives. If that sounds better again, I might even bi wire the 0 awg. If it works, great. If it doesn't I can use it in another system. |
I guess you’re probably right, b4icu. It’s a giant conspiracy. Very carefully choreographed by big money - and it’s worldwide. Especially in the US. You see everything, don’t you? 😬
|
Mr.
conradnash
What
is the difference between T and D class...? D class may have a DF of up to 5,000! Using
the same formula, it would suggest a cable with a cross section of an elephant's
leg…
I'll
rest my case and not dig into those few who wend that way.
Most Japanese
receivers have a DF of 40.
As
you ignored my need for cable length, I cannot answer that question. The link
for the spec does not specify DF.
I'm confused. Are you going to connect this SONY receiver with two 0 AWG wires?
Please follow my say over this thread and then reconsider. Thanks
|
Mr. geoffkait
I'm sick of your nagging. At a time you repeat other's say I have my own
thinking. I learned, tested, experience and then talk. Not like you…You bring
mostly makers of the audio industry that have an agenda: profit: The more the better.
I'm here with no such intension. If you would read some of the posts,
you would understand that I'm truly here to give. Not to take. My only request
from the members was to share. I have no idea what they will write, but still
I'll keep asking for that. I start to suspect that you are here representing a
firm in this industry that may not be happy if this idea catches popularity. It's
also a big shame they sold their stuff for long years without having a clue of
what their customers need.
The US:
I and my country (Israel) own big to the US. I know some Americans I
worked with guys from GD, Boeing, and Lockheed. I found Americans to be very
nice and honest people. I'm sorry to say that you are different.
|
You're right, sorry, I forgot cable length. The length is 2m for that system.
No, I'm not going to connect that receiver with two 0 awg wires, apologies for the confusion.
I have three "systems".
An HT/listening room: classe ct5300 -> 2.5m cable -> B&W 802
A family room TV: Sony DH820 -> 2m cable -> B&W 604
An office system: Class T amp -> 2m cable -> B&W 805
You could say I like the B&W house sound :)
The plan is to use 0 awg in the HT
Prior to that upgrade I'll try bi-wiring with my current 4mm cable. If that makes a significant improvement, and the 0 awg is an improvement over the bi-wire, then I might order more 0 awg and see what bi-wiring does with that. Again, that's all in the HT.
If the bi-wire in the cinema offers no improvement I was thinking about where else I could use that cable. I'm probably getting ahead of myself. I'm sure you're going to tell me not to bother bi-wiring with 0 awg anyway, in which case I'll likely leave it.
Thanks again for all this information and time. My new cable ships tomorrow so I'll tell you how it sounds and give you pictures later this week. |
Mr. conradnash
I'll refer, with your kind permission to your HT system only. The rest
doesn't worth the effort.
I've told you what cable you need. I took the time and the effort doing
so.
If you have other ideas, you are welcome. I won't take the responsibility
for that. I do not understand why you would ask for my advice and then do else.
Is that sounds right to you?
Well if you go your way, it is your choice. However, it would have
nothing to do with my thread. This is not a bi wire thread and I do not wish to
keep that subject as topic here.
It may not benefit any of us.
|
conradnash
@geoffkait , absolutely. While the logic and absolute-ness (in audio, indeed!) might not be agreed on by everyone, I’m an advocate of trying it and seeing how I get on. If bi-wiring has claims to work (ignoring any bi-amping, whether active or passive) then swapping the cable for one double thick run instead of two thinner runs should achive a similar effect. Maybe that’s what’s being seen here? Either way, agreeing that bi-wiring might work but this can’t seems like a contradictory argument.
>>>>Sorry, no offense intended, and I realize some will probably accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟 but you don’t have any more idea what bi wiring is than b4icu.
|
I appreciate your instructions and they're what I'm following. 2.5m of 0 awg. I'm really just thinking aloud about other possibilities.
Also, in the course of this thread I've come to realise that I can test out bi-wiring my 802s. But that's of no real relevance here, you're right.
To be clear, I'm taking your advice, I've ordered what you suggested, and that's what I'll feed back on. Thanks. |
@geoffkait I think I know what it is, but I don't understand the reasons behind it offering any improvement. I'm no electrical engineer so I'm no position to talk about impedance, conductance, and resistance, or how the length, gauge, or number of cables alters their relationship. I'll freely admit that.
Like I said, I'll try bi-wiring as well as part of my experiments. I don't need to understand why it works to hear the difference. |
See my post today at 12:01 pm. That should help. There seems to be some confusion as to what bi wiring actually is. Not everyone is in a position to be able to try it, consequently, even if he wanted to.
|
Good point. I won't involve myself and perpetuate the misunderstanding.
That said, I am in a position to try it, so I will.
Much like b4icu's 0 awg cable recommendation. It's going to be an experimentation week. |
Some say about this thread.
Not like many other threads, this one has a theoretical (engineering)
side and a practical side. We can long argue the theoretical, till the practical
part knocks on the door.
So far, only one got there. More are in the process. I would advice to
be a little bit more patient and read what that will bring with their
generous
sharing. I
hope that then the party will really get excited.
Each one, who took thing in hands, may have a little bit different
implementation to that cable. Also they have different setups. The principal
will remain the same. So should be the results.
If I'll take Mr. keppertup as an example (a very good one), I can
assure you he is satisfied with the results and will not look back to exchange
the new cables with his old once. He is the first for you, but I have more…
Before this happens, I am worried a bit. So I was with the other once. What
will be the reaction to that change? Even thou I hope for the best. So far,
things look pretty much consistent. There is no convincing on my side. I won't benefit
from those who reject the idea or think different. I do benefit from those,
like Mr. keppertup, who report of getting from the very same equipment
with a new wire (cable) a way better sound. So far this is my reword. For me it
is a big one.
If on the way, I can help some with other things, it would only be a benefit.
However, I wish this thread do not turn into some infertile debate over
one (or more) of some urban myths. Attempts were so far successfully pushed
back.
|
@b4icu. My Lyngdorf 2170 does not list the DF spec as you know. You speculated 250. I emailed them and they say the speaker cable’s impedance is much more import and the thus the DF and output impedance are not given for the amp. It is a powered dac. They said the unit has no negative feedback loop and the damping factor is very low. I think the DF is closer to 100. My speakers are Dali Epicon 6s. My cable length is 20 feet and unfortunately this cannot change. Would you still recommend 3/0 AWG.
Lastly, one side can be 8 feet, but the other has to be 20 feet. |
b4icu, I’m sorry you have been subjected to such rudeness on this thread. There are certainly much kinder and gentler ways to disagree with somebody over their ideas. Also, and nothing to do with speaker cables, I did enjoy your aside about your daughter’s military service. You must be very proud of them.
I am new to the field of high end audio wiring and am trying to learn about it. I have recently purchased two new speakers, Magico A3’s, to be delivered in February, and a new amplifier, a Luxman L-507uXII, I’ll be picking up this week.
The Magico A3’s will be located 4-5 feet to either side of the amplifier. The wires will also have to travel about another 3-4 feet to get to the height of the Luxman amplifier off the floor and then behind it to the amps connectors. Worst case scenario, maybe ten feet of cable to each speaker will be needed. The Luxman has a listed damping factor of 260 . The Magico’s are rated at 4 ohms impedance, if that has any relevance.
What would you recommend for sizing and creating speaker cables in this instance? And what might you guess or estimate it might cost to create them as you’ve described? If there is any other information you need, please let me know and I will obtain it for you. Thank you for offering your assistance to Audiogon’s readership.
Michael
|
Mr.
grannyring
The Lyngdorf 2170 is a digital Amp. par excellence! those usually
come with high DF. Very high...(theoretically something like 5,000!) on other
posts (private one) an other maker would recommend of an equivalent DF of
1,000. However you've been told that it has a DF of 100. It is a 10x ratio
difference!
As so, I would go for your cables in two options that you will have to make up
your mind, and take a decision of which one you like to believe to
For 20 ft long:
For a DF of 100 it would be a 1 AWG (I would take a 0 AWG that is more popular
to find and work with)
For a DF 1,000 it would be a 4x 0 AWG in parallel, or 2x 4/0 (0000)
AWG in parallel. This is a very thick and heavy cable.
The set would be over 40Lb. I doubt if you can do a DIY cable of such size.
If the 100 is your choice, and the real DF is more like a 1,000, you are
still at enjoying only 50% of your system. If your choice is the 1,000 whatever
the trouble to get it, you will end up with the right cable, of way more (not
really required) and expensive cable. Up to you!
|
Mr. skyscraper
Nice system.
The Luxman L-507uXII has a DF of 260: http://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=4
For your 10ft. length it is between 1 AWG and 2 AWG. You may adopt one
of the 0 AWG DIY that was brought up along this thread (parts source and labor methodes).
I know in person Mr. Yair Tamam a major designer of the Magico speaker. https://magico.net/redefine/redefine.php
For some reason he is not mentioned on this site. (Mr.) Alon is
an Israeli name and they have a dealer in Israel too. I know that they earned
over night a great reputation with their speakers. On my 3rd seminar
held here in Israel, Mr. Tamam lectured on his vision of building a speaker…it was in
2001.
|
Mr.
conradnash
Please be kind to take your Bi wire subject with Mr.
geoffkait who keeps posting on the subject (none relevant to this thread) to another place. Thanks. |
