Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
184.68.34.106
In Reply to: RE: Preferred Speaker Cables for Maggies posted by TwoTurntables on January 26, 2016 at 05:48:00
I tried a few cables (can't recall the models, the brands were Tara, Monster and a couple others I can't currently recall), none compared to the Anti-cables in my system. Always wanted to try Kimber though, will one day...
Follow Ups:
I went through Kimber, different Audioquest, and a very nice set of Analysis Plus cables. Another time, I tried 5 different sets via The Cable Company lending program. I liked the Harmonic Technology cables from that test.
But frankly, I find the Anti-cables from Paul Speltz worked extremely well for my bi-amped Maggie 1.6qr's.
These days I run extremely short speaker cable runs. Not sure how short a run has to be before cable differences are moot.
"Knowing what you don't know is, in a sense, omniscience"
I agree with using Anti-cables but being a cheapskate I bought a 1/2# spool of 16 awg magnet wire from Remington Industries and "made" my own. I said made but that is a mild exaggeration since I just loosely twisted a pair of wires and use them bare (no termination). I felt the 12awg of the Anti-cables was overkill and I can't hear a difference between the official Anti-cable and my DIY. The spool costs about $10 and gives you 64'.
I prefer the old thinner gauge anti-cables over the new thicker runs. Bigger isn't necessarily better IMO...
I have some 18 AWG solid core magwire on the way to try. However, my speakers are some distance from my equipment area which is in the next room. My speaker wire needs to run about 35 feet. I bi amp with a PLLXO so I have a separate run for the tweeter and bass panels from my amps. Currently I use Belden 1309A 14 AWG stranded speaker wire.
Given that I have upto 35 ft runs. I am thinking of taking the magwire and creating a star quad configuration (similar to Canare 4S11) so that I can have a 18 AWG + 18 AWG pair twist for the positive plus a 18 AWG + 18 AWG pair twist for the negative with those two pair twists then twisted together. This will yield about a effective 15 AWG twisted pair total for each run. Given I bi-amp, I will need two of these star quads runs for each speaker.
Is this the best approach for L and C given the distance?
My current 18 awg star quad concept will require more wire then I have on the way. (35ft x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 560 ft) So I will ultimately need more wire purchased. Should I consider purchasing larger or smaller gauge magwire? Trying different gauge wire for tweeter vs bass panels? Since I am running the wire between rooms and drop ceilings. Creating parallel wires tape separated is not really feasible. I need some sort of twist to keep the bundle together.
I think a single twisted pair run for the mid/tweeter will do fine.
I don't think the aggregate 15AWG of the star quad is quite enough. I would go to a double of that at least (4 twisted pairs half of each carrying one pole). Particularly with your long distances.
Thanks satie,
just to clarify, you think a single 18 AWG twisted pair is ok for the tweeter. but you recommend 4 twisted pairs (12 AWG equivalent) for the bass side of the biamp?
I would go even thinner on the Mid/tweeter. Use mulitple runs of a finer gauge of the magnet wire. Thinner is always better for high frequencies. Try to minimize inductance as well. Better still would be some flat ribbon cables for the mid/highs. Keep the larger solid core wire for the bass panel.
I have high end cables, just have them around to impress friends, all my working cables are 12ga ohno copper, if there is a difference in sound I can't hear it. I also tried the cat5 trip and heard no real difference either. For me it's a waste a money, but maybe some can hear in the dog zone :)
Al
I don't know what you mean exactly by having "high end cables" around just to impress your friends...my friends are not really impressed by cables but if yours are it is good that you can oblige them.
I use copper ribbon speaker cables made by Goertz. These work better than most else i have tried (I can hear quite a difference) and were not very expensive. Getting the same thing in Silver would be a substantial cost increase though.
Interestingly, I have found that it has not so much to do with the the highest frequencies (dog zone as you put it) but in texture and control of bass, soundstage/imaging and orderliness of the whole sound structure. Many cables sound noisy or "fizzy" in the highs and I found that flat ribbons clean this up nicely and that has a knock on effect for the imaging/soundstaging, improving it significantly. Also, my Goertz are the equivalent copper of a 10 gauge wire, so bass is ultra solid.
Has anyone ever clearly proven they are able to hear differences in double blind tests between reasonably well designed, appropriate-length/diameter cables? I am under the impression the answer to this question is no, so I am not sure what this discussion is about.
If some people (indeed if even one person) could hear the difference, it would be a simple process to prove it beyond any doubt. Does such a proof exist that I am unaware of?
I don't mean to get a debate on the issue here, but I would really appreciate the link to the proven research that X was able to consistently hear differences between cable Y and Z in a scientifically valid, objectively repeatable test.
We were able to demonstrate it with single blind tests...we didn't have the equipment to do double blind.
With the right combination of cables and source/load characteristics audible differences could easily be identified with blind testing. Many cables are designed specifically to sound different in order to differentiate their subjective performance from other alternatives. But it's not hand-waving cable magic as some audiophiles would have you believe. :)
Luckily, in most cases, the "right combination" doesn't exist in most users audio systems and audible cable differences are minimal.
There's a reason why so many people are in the audiophile cable business. It's easy money. :)
Cables are the high-profit center of typical audio salons.
Cheers,
Dave.
Thanks Dave!
Just to replay to make sure I get it... Are you saying that with properly chosen mismatches between sources and loads the differences between cables would be so obvious that there is no need to validate it with double blind listening tests? If so, why is there any remaining controversy over whether there are any differences at all between cables? Or are you also saying that wires are specifically made to sound different and therefore most will actually sound different to at least some discriminating listeners? Or are you saying both? Neither?
Is there a good reference article objectively delineating when people can and can't tell the difference? (This question is of course open to everyone's not the forum -- if anyone knows of any well designed experiments which clearly reveal when certain groups of listeners can and can't tell the difference between similar gauge and length cables I would LOVE to read it)
Thanks!
Double blind and ABX tests are UN SCIENCE. They ignore the requirements of human cognition. The typical questions to the listener are "is it different"? "Is one better"? These are nonsensical as that is never what we listen for. The answers are "I don't care" and "better at what"? respectively. Garbage in and garbage out.
We are not oscilloscopes. We are observers over time. .If you had a bunch of test data without any indication of which product you measured and under what conditions would you be able to say if the products are different?, much less determine which is "better" at anything?
Opthamologists/optometrists, etc. do this type of thing all the time, and if you use corrective lenses, that's why you wear the ones you have.
I always get asked "better now or better now"? Is there any reason this can't be done with speaker wires and listening (rather than ears and sound)?
Perhaps this also in fact applies to hearing aid evaluations. (My eye MD once even to play a little trick me up, making the switching noises but not the lenses.
Given young listeners with outstanding hearing ability, I don't believe they could consistently conclude which is the 'better' wire. And allow it to be in the same sense of 'better' as in choosing corrective lenses (and no matter how any 'lawyer' here tries to 'worm' their way out.
That is because what is tested is your performance with the hearing aid or glasses, You are highlighting what is exactly my point. It is not a test of the equipment being evaluated it is a test of the listener. Guess what, we don't give a hoot about the listener, we care about the equipment's performance.The other issue is that you are evaluating very particular sensory perception not anything as esoteric as what we audiophiles listen for.
A friend with hearing aids has gained a bit of an audiophile superpower able to easily distinguish cables and various digital data transmission schemes, DLNA and pull protocols from the NAS vs. USB push and even DoP on SPDIF vs native DSD on USB.
Thanks for the replies Moricab and Satie,
Is there a link to the objective review on single blind, Moricab? I would really like to see when some listeners can and can't distinguish differences or preferences.
Satie, if the differences between cables are clear and obvious, then a blind test could be designed to try to quantify the differences. You and I could easily design the test.
You may be right that blind tests are unable to differentiate the cables, but that longer range experience would reveal differences and preferences. But that would itself be an extremely revealing empirical finding (and would still contradict 90% of all cable and power cord reviews I have read). Here are some potential hypotheses which are testable:
1). Differences between cables are obvious to everyone in blind listening tests
2). Differences between sufficiently different cable types/technologies/constructions are obvious to a limited group of extremely attentive listeners in blind listening tests (some people can differentiate some cables)
3). Differences between cables or cable types are not statistically identifiable in blind tests to anyone yet discovered
4). Same as three but some are still objectively able to distinguish differences over time through extensive listening
I assume Moricab believes 2 to be true, and possibly Dave does as well. I encourage both to set me straight. From your response I assume you are leaning more toward 4. Again, I am not sure though.
Sadly, I never actually reported it as a think piece or a review...wish I had now but on the other hand it would have been given a lot S#)T from the scientific politically correct. All, I will say is it was satisfying to me as the listeners (4 in total) were nearly 100% correct in choosing between 4 different interconnects design types (telling ribbon vs. wire) and like 80% correct telling between specific cables. We had 2 wire and 2 ribbon...all using solid silver construction. A copper wire cable would have probably stood out like a sore thumb in this group.
The wire vs. ribbon though made by far the biggest difference in this single blind test...the ribbon interconnects had far better decoding of space and relations of performers in space. It simply made more sense and the bass was meatier and more solid.
Anyway the gear at the time was my Silvaweld SWC1000 preamp and Sphinx project 14 amp. We were changing between amp and preamp then DAC and preamp.
It is beneficial to hide the commercial name and appearance of the items you are evaluating and providing each with a different generic label. Then let them play what they need to so as to learn the characteristics of each item. Then ask how do they differ on a set of characteristics. Do not ask just "are they different" and definitely don't ask if one is generally "better" unless there is a clear superiority in most or all the characteristics, as the personal preference of the balance of characteristics is what you would get as an answer and that is useless to anybody else.
The resolving capabilities of the equipment and good matching are also very significant to the results you would get. Well executed stats and ribbon or ring radiator diamond or thin VD beryllium tweeters are usually key requirements for having a chance at making clear observations. Planar low mass midranges like BGs help too. E.g. using JBL centuries stock I didn't care enough about the differences between zip cord, monstercable basic and DNM cables. With Yamaha NS1000 Berylium tweeters the differences were very obvious, very much more so with my own RtoR recordings.As far as appearances went, the zipcord was least obtrusive and the other cables looked distinctly ugly. As to audio jewelry I tend to view it as lipstick on a pig. It is still a box or a cable..
Interconnect cables were relatively easy to hide because the gear was in a rack so the players were behind the rack.
I agree about the speaker resolution. Good ribbons or stats or horns are usually essential. My Ref 3as were not too bad at showing differences too as they were upgraded with Be tweeters and the midrange is quite revealing with them. That said my Odeon horns are quite close to what I used to get from my Acoustat Spectras but with a more front row live Jazz kind of feel.
I received my red and green magnet wire spools. two spools each 18 AWG by 100 feet.
I had enough wire to make a single 50ft length quad star (1 2x18AWG twist red + 1 2x18AWG twist green then twisted together)
Maybe not a full test, but I hooked up the one magwire assembly to one of my tweeter panels on the left speaker only. I used the left/right balance to switch from my left (magwire) to my right (14 AWG belden brillance 1309A speaker wire) while playing music. The bass panels on both were connected with the belden wire.
I focused on listening for differences in the highs. At least for my hearing and with this limited setup, I was not able to hear much of a difference. At least not enough of a difference to warrant buying more wire and building a complete biamp set and running it thru the walls.
Your twisting scheme doesn't sound like star-quad to me.
But regardless, you have an effective 15 gauge cable with properties not dissimilar to your Belden cable. I wouldn't expect to hear much of a difference.Your twisted result was probably very stiff and horrible to deal with though eh? :)
The Belden cable is just fine, IMO. I use some of that myself.
Dave.
Edits: 02/10/16
Yes, I am thinking that you can get away with just the one 18AWG twisted pair for mid/tweeter. If you want to be sure then you can double them up since reinstallation into the wall is a PITA so if you were off in too little metal then you would have to do it over.
I do suggest that a 12 gauge equivalent for the bass section wire is the minimal thickness. In my own setup where I am driving Tympani bass panels to below 20hz and play loud I increased the thickness till I got no improvement in performance when going from 8 gauge to 6 gauge. My runs are only less than half as long as yours.
I recently learned that the Cardas Golden Reference is 3.5 gauge so this is not outlandish.
I suspect it has to do with damping (factor) as the difference between 10 gauge to 8 gauge while passive biamping was minimal if not indistinguishable while it was rather obvious with the active crossover particularly when I took out the infrasonic filter.
I don't claim to be a cable guru but from my understanding of the subject, star-quad for speaker cables is just a waste of copper. The star-quad reduces RFI but this is minimal for speaker cables and it will increase the capacitance which theoretically would attenuate the high frequency signal and might be a problem for some amps. I say theoretically since the cable length probably needs to exceed 50 meters or more for any significant attenuation. Personally, I would just use single runs of 16 AWG or perhaps 16 for the mid-tweeter and 14 for the woofer. You could place a RC network across the tweeter to reduce RFI if that is a concern.
You might want to post on the Cable forum to get some other opinions. Personally I think those guys are whacko but I am sure they would think I'm a troglodyte.
Many have probably already seen this, but if not enjoy. Long ago it was established that no differences could be heard when using a variety of different speaker wires:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UQDTZcpsDE
I agree except for ONE minor point.
If the crossover is near the 50:50 power point of about 350hz, than I'd say to use the SAME size wire for both runs.
At some high or low frequency when the power ratio from hi:lo or lo:hi is 30:70 or so, THAN I'd go with heavier wire on the side which needs more power.
My Panels cross at 600 and I run identical but only 4' runs to each 'side'. In an ideal setup, I could see needing only 2' per run which might make 'what wire?' a moot point.
That's a total of 16'/4=4ft per run.
Too much is never enough
My reason for star-quad is it seemed like a good way to twist two pairs of 18 AWG together for + and then for - so that I would increase the overall AWG of the run and keep the bundle managable as it runs thru my walls.
I was concerned that 18 AWG was not a large enough gauge to run 35 feet.
Sorry, I'm a little late on this post, but I concur with Bernie. The Analysis Plus solo crystal oval 8 works very well with my 20.1's. I have used 4 or 5 others over the years and have had no inclination to change since I got these cables about 5 years ago.
RD
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: