|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.144.114.174
I am running Quad ESL 57s now. I have been switching between two pairs of speaker cables: A 2m pair of Nordost Red Dawn that cost around $1100 new and a pair of 14 AWG solid copper from Amazon that cost $20 for 25'.
I wanted the cheap cable to sound better. I want the $600 I can get from selling the Nordost.
I also don't understand how multi-strand cable can be good. No electronic component uses multi-strand cable internally. You are giving the signal multiple paths. How can this be good?
But the bottom line after 10 hours of AB testing is that the Nordost cable has lower noise floor. It doesn't have more bass (which I've experienced if you use too thin a solid cable) or more highs or anything like that, just lower "noise" and, thus, more musical detail.
What physical property of flat cables causes this?
Follow Ups:
nt
Please post a link to the Amazon product, PaulF70.
nt
Just as possible /likely that the N wires are less transparent /blocking ugly noise artifacts generating from your upstream gear .
Seriously.... Food for thought.
Everything is relative. Some cables reduce noise and distortion more than others. And the same cable can be made to further reduce noise and distortion, by raising it off the floor thus reducing effects of vibration and static electric fields. Geometry of the cable, purity of the conductor, type of metal, type of dielectric, quality and type of terminations/connectors, cryogenic treatment and of course our old friend direction of the conductor 🔛, so in large measure it's a system engineering thing.
Edits: 09/13/20 09/13/20
I can guarantee that it doesn't sound 40 times better than Red Dawn.
Getting off the Soapbox now...
a Bugatti Chiron drive or corner 40 times better than a Porsche Boxster.
The highest performance with any endeavor always involves high development cost and is found at the top end of diminishing returns. It is wonderful, however, to experience such. ;)
why not sell the Nordost and stick with the cheaper cables?
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
Based on some of MY systems? In some instances, I found the Nordost "Blue Heaven" sounded better than the "Red Dawn." In the end, with the system I kept Nordost in? I was more than happy with the "Super Flatline MKII Gold bi-wire," or whatever they actual designation is/was - it works GREAT between my VTL amps and Gallo speakers.
Otherwise? You might want to try some super thin wires with your Quads - Just some good old "cable TV" (rg-whatever the heck it is) wire, lashed together (using just the inner, copper/solid conductor) sounded pretty awesome in many systems where CURRENT wasn't the "driving factor" <--- pun intended.
I have a 2M pair of Blue Heaven too. Had that first. I actually had to wait like a year to find a used pair of Red Dawns.
The Red Dawns are better. Hard to describe how, but I can pick them out easily in an A/B test.
(I really hope the even more expensive Nordost cables are not still better. Cause I'm never buying any.)
Can't argue with that, in your system!
Will say? In my system, the "Blue Heaven" was better.
Will also say? I'd again suggest you might want to try the paired RG-whatever. Probably won't cost you $20, and it may work VERY well with the Quads.
this thread might have more 'traction' over in Cables or Propeller Head
just sayin'
Hi rivervalley817,
I'm just glad to see fellow AA Inmates enjoying the topic without rancor in General Asylum, where posters who tend to act like gentlemen in a public forum can still be found. Some specialty forums aren't as tolerant towards the topic, and those who advocate the notion of high-performance cables...
Cheers, Duster
good point ... I hereby withdraw my comment
carry on!
"I also don't understand how multi-strand cable can be good. No electronic component uses multi-strand cable internally. You are giving the signal multiple paths. How can this be good?"
The notion that "no electronic component uses multi-strand cable internally" is curious. Have you ever actually looked inside "an electrical component?" Be prepared for a revelation!
The assertion that, "I also don't understand how multi-strand cable can be good" is accurate though.
From Wikipedia: Skin effect is the tendency of an alternating electric current to become distributed within a conductor such that the current density is largest near the surface of the conductor and decreases exponentially with greater depths in the conductor.
OK, now follow that into some logical conclusion: smaller and more numerous conductors decrease the skin effect and will increase the current flow density. In the field of audio, the music signal is the AC current flowing through the conductor. The uneven current density in large diameter conductors increases resistance and causes higher losses. The "skin effect" explains why some audiophiles consider Litz wire to be the best conductor for interconnects and even speaker cables.
I can second your comment about the use of stranded wire in components-
Most of the components that I built professionally used stranded wire internally - unless it was a jumper on a PCB, and then not always for that...
Stranded wire has a number of advantages, and should not be overlooked-
Happy Listening
I was largely going by argument from authority regarding multi-strand cables in electronics, though I've built a number of amps and DACs and none used multi-strand...
Been reading this morning & I think skin effect and, esp., low capacitance of flat cables is probably it.
You are giving the signal multiple paths. How can this be good?
The approach lowers capacitance which can be a good think driving electrostats. :)
Thank you.
I was about to answer: "The quality or essence of capacitance is energy storage."
Any time you have a conductor and a shield separated by a dialectric material, you have created an energy-storage system (please see link).
That is why capacitors are used in crossovers (please forgive my over-simplification): to slow down, to the point of "capture," the low frequencies, so that only the high frequencies can pass on to the tweeter.
Now that we think we know that systems with capacitance (such as loudspeaker cables) can store energy, we now must think, "Shit! How much of that 'stored energy' is the moral equivalent of 'Junk DNA' ?"
The answer is: It is junk. Or, noise.
The rapidity with which a capacitive system can discharge stray voltages ("Junk DNA") and "refresh" with the new content will, IMHO, be perceived as "having a lower noise floor."
BTW, I design cables.
BTW2: Don't expect most cable manufacturers to be willing to talk about such matters.
Have a nice wknd,
The once and future John Marks
Hi JM!
There's another factor I learned long ago from inmate jneutron who's a high energy particle physicist: effective dielectric constant which is effectively the product of L & C.
While that doesn't tell you everything, I find it correlates pretty well to what I've heard in systems. And I prefer those with a balance of values as opposed to the approach taken by companies like Goerz with low L offset by high C.
The JPS Labs Superconductor I use has an EDC of 1.16. The Nordost Valhalla/Odin that Harry liked similarly has a near ideal value of 1.0 as well. And they are one of few cable manufacturers who puts those metrics on their website.
...if EDC is defined as the product of the L & C of a multi-conductor cable assy AND the ideal product is 1, there is an infinite number of possible combinations of L & C that have a product of 1. Additionally, real-world cable assys have interconductor capacitance that result in absurd (physically impossible) values of associated inductance. ex As you probably know, Kimber speaker cable design accepts a relatively high interconductor capacitance as the trade-off for relatively lower inductance. A random length of Kimber 16 conductor speaker cable when configured as designed has an interconductor capacitance of ~ 1,700pF. Using the LC=1 RoT here, L~588,000,000H, an impractically large if not physically impossible value. What did I miss?
Perhaps to you.
...if EDC is defined as the product of the L & C of a multi-conductor cable assy AND the ideal product is 1, there is an infinite number of possible combinations of L & C that have a product of 1.
Congratulations on understanding the principle.
As you probably know, Kimber speaker cable design accepts a relatively high interconductor capacitance as the trade-off for relatively lower inductance.
If so, that is the trade off Goertz chose as I previously mentioned and stated is not my preference.
Did you follow the embedded link I provided in the previous post to the complete formula?
...I see what JN is attempting. He even makes the effort to specify the units used. But what's there isn't at all what you posted. Thus the bewilderment.
But what's there isn't at all what you posted.Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "effectively".
Take the LC product using the stated unit of measure and divide by 1031 for the complete formula.
Or actually by 1034 as John has not been entirely consistent.
Edits: 09/12/20
I find no value addressing one's imagination.
you figure it out. Understanding requires only eighth grade math if you need assistance. ;)
Hint: DC = the topic of my discussion and result of the calculation - dielectric constant.
While the math might be 8th grade, the concepts JN discusses are probably 12th grade physics. Up to the challenge?
As a starter, notice the following statement from the first paragraph of JN's post you linked:
The relation between inductance, capacitance, and dielectric of a double braid coax is the following...
L * C = 1031 * DC...
L is in nanohenries per foot
C is in picofarads per foot
DC is the dielectric coefficient of the insulation between the braids.
Clearly JN is discussing a specific construction of a coax cable consisting of two concentric tubular conductors of different diameters separated by a dielectric. The relationship JN provides applies only to that configuration and not to the general case as you seem to imply.
I think you've misunderstood what JN was attempting to do back then.
Be well!
Up to the challenge?What challenge?
The relationship JN provides applies only to that configuration and not to the general case as you seem to imply.
Your assumption is incorrect. Maybe you might learn something.
For all transmission lines, the relation LC = 1034 DC holds...
FOR ALL TRANSMISSION LINES.
FOR ALL TRANSMISSION LINES.
Got it? ;)
Just in case you don't consider "speaker cable" part of "all transmission lines", let's view another post. Are you up to it? LOL!
Edits: 09/13/20
give him a break, some people just aren't very good at word problems
best regards,
is a bad combination. ;)
*
Did you ever figure out your original moniker? Wasn't it Aristarchus?
Perhaps that was a victim of *condensation*. :)
go solo Ignatz ... back to your room full of mirrors
a lot of 'condensation' in here eh? /s
best regards,
And just a pinch of condescension.
Yup! I read a white paper on ESL speaker cables this morning.
Maybe the solid copper wire is a better antenna and it's picking up noise? You might want to post this over in the Cable Asylum or maybe not.
Edits: 09/10/20
It's not that kind of "noise." You don't hear "noise" with no signal. It's a lowering of the *noise floor*, such that, somehow, there is less "fuzz" and more musical detail with the flat cable.
You only notice this in comparison, of course.
Without a signal the system wouldn't be generating the "noise" the cables may be picking up.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: