Somehow I knew that 😀. The wires aren't that interesting anyway. A little less inductive than figure 8 zip-cord, but that's about it. About the size of 11 AWG but a little longer than straight wires would be due to the twisted internal construction.
I never went past the "cable I had on hand" so I figured with all the upgrading I'm doing it is about time to dress up that part as well.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if cables "could" make a difference in a setup when reading the old Nelson Pass paper, but discussing it always seems to lead nowhere.
As demonstrated I had some cables ready to go until I figured out all my connectors are of the gold plated variety. So the tin plated cables in combination with gold plated contacts did not make sense (to me). That made me go with the star quad type of cabling, as it would give an opportunity to see/hear the difference between them (if there is any) and the old figure 8 zip cord.
I'll have a pretty full schedule of things I want to try, once the speakers are back in action. The test of cables wouldn't be high on my list of things to try. However I do remember koldby being fond of coax type cabling, which would have an even lower inductance. He has proven it to me to be right about the fact that amps do sound (appreciably) different, so I have no reason to doubt him in this matter.
If we can keep it civil, I am open to hear opinions on that matter. I just don't want to derail things as wire debates often seen to trigger. I'm interested non the less, as the figures shown in the Pass Labs paper left me pondering without coming to any useful conclusion.
I'd love to hear a good explanation of what we see in figure 8 in this paper.
As I've had a full conjugate network, rendering my speakers impedance flat, and hearing the difference with the high end compensation and without it (rising impedance on top) I could never come up with a good explanation of why I preferred not to compensate the rising top end. I definitely heard a difference. I kind of expected to prefer the compensated top end, but didn't. So much for bias.
Comparison of uncorrected an corrected impedance
Top end compensation removed, as I have been running for years
** Listening impressions with full compensation were as if the top end was overly damped. Not as lively. Restrained would be a word to describe it. Both situations, with and without compensation were measured and corrected with FIR to have the exact same FR response. **
Is it risky or could we talk about this in a civil way 🙂. I know/realize its controversial. I should not have heard a difference with the full conjugate network or without. Unless the amplifier wasn't doing what it should be doing. This was with the Pioneer. I never repeated it as I had removed the top compensation and left the rest in place.
With the extra filters added to my arrays, I need to find out if I want to re-adjust the conjugate that is left or just leave it out completely.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if cables "could" make a difference in a setup when reading the old Nelson Pass paper, but discussing it always seems to lead nowhere.
As demonstrated I had some cables ready to go until I figured out all my connectors are of the gold plated variety. So the tin plated cables in combination with gold plated contacts did not make sense (to me). That made me go with the star quad type of cabling, as it would give an opportunity to see/hear the difference between them (if there is any) and the old figure 8 zip cord.
I'll have a pretty full schedule of things I want to try, once the speakers are back in action. The test of cables wouldn't be high on my list of things to try. However I do remember koldby being fond of coax type cabling, which would have an even lower inductance. He has proven it to me to be right about the fact that amps do sound (appreciably) different, so I have no reason to doubt him in this matter.
If we can keep it civil, I am open to hear opinions on that matter. I just don't want to derail things as wire debates often seen to trigger. I'm interested non the less, as the figures shown in the Pass Labs paper left me pondering without coming to any useful conclusion.
I'd love to hear a good explanation of what we see in figure 8 in this paper.
As I've had a full conjugate network, rendering my speakers impedance flat, and hearing the difference with the high end compensation and without it (rising impedance on top) I could never come up with a good explanation of why I preferred not to compensate the rising top end. I definitely heard a difference. I kind of expected to prefer the compensated top end, but didn't. So much for bias.
Comparison of uncorrected an corrected impedance
Top end compensation removed, as I have been running for years
** Listening impressions with full compensation were as if the top end was overly damped. Not as lively. Restrained would be a word to describe it. Both situations, with and without compensation were measured and corrected with FIR to have the exact same FR response. **
Is it risky or could we talk about this in a civil way 🙂. I know/realize its controversial. I should not have heard a difference with the full conjugate network or without. Unless the amplifier wasn't doing what it should be doing. This was with the Pioneer. I never repeated it as I had removed the top compensation and left the rest in place.
With the extra filters added to my arrays, I need to find out if I want to re-adjust the conjugate that is left or just leave it out completely.
Attachments
Last edited:
Law of diminishing returns..
For short runs of speaker cable, they will all be adequate.
Longer runs, differences become noticable quickly.
The best cable I have heard for the low end is still the Kimber Kable 8PR or 12PR. But they are no good for the top end.
I used to use bi-wire KK 4TC between the Jeff Rowland model 2 and B&W 805's and KK 8PR from the Bryston 4b to the servo subs.
Now I moved the amps (tri-amp nCores) to the speakers and use 4ft. of silver plated copper with ptfe insulation for the ScanSpeak Revelator mids and Fountek Neo ribbons. Still use the KK 8PR for the servo subs.
Swapped out many runs from the amps to ribbons and amp to mids.. Being "short" runs there was almost no detectable difference. So the twisted pair of Silver plated Copper stayed for the top end.
But I digress, where was I? Oh yeah,
Law of diminishing returns..
For short runs of speaker cable, they will all be adequate.
[emoji6]
May I suggest that you define your parameters before you ask for opinions or comments on wire?
Otherwise you are getting into the "tunable" cables and biased electrical field cables and such, which I am sure would not add much to the intended discussion.
For short runs of speaker cable, they will all be adequate.
Longer runs, differences become noticable quickly.
The best cable I have heard for the low end is still the Kimber Kable 8PR or 12PR. But they are no good for the top end.
I used to use bi-wire KK 4TC between the Jeff Rowland model 2 and B&W 805's and KK 8PR from the Bryston 4b to the servo subs.
Now I moved the amps (tri-amp nCores) to the speakers and use 4ft. of silver plated copper with ptfe insulation for the ScanSpeak Revelator mids and Fountek Neo ribbons. Still use the KK 8PR for the servo subs.
Swapped out many runs from the amps to ribbons and amp to mids.. Being "short" runs there was almost no detectable difference. So the twisted pair of Silver plated Copper stayed for the top end.
But I digress, where was I? Oh yeah,
Law of diminishing returns..
For short runs of speaker cable, they will all be adequate.
[emoji6]
May I suggest that you define your parameters before you ask for opinions or comments on wire?
Otherwise you are getting into the "tunable" cables and biased electrical field cables and such, which I am sure would not add much to the intended discussion.
True... it isn't my intention to go there. My cables are 2.2 meter, and it makes me wonder if there would be (enough appreciable) differences in the more elaborate wire constructions that lower inductance even further while keeping the capacitance in check.
I also wonder if I should rebuild the impedance correction circuit, as much has changed (with the addition of sub-woofers). I think I'll start without and try and modify my existing correction if I get curious enough. If I do seem to have a preference for the impedance correction, I'll build an updated new version that I can place out of sight behind the arrays.
If you say no good for the top end, the KK 8PR, what was it that didn't suit your needs? They seem to have lower than usual inductance (due to the braiding) while keeping capacitance at reasonable numbers. (link).
KK 8PR - 90pF/ft - .041uH/ft - 11 AWG
Canare 4S11 - 16,7 pF/ft - 0.10uH/ft - 11 AWG (link) The capacitance figure seems off...
or
According to this measurement. Canare states 45 pF/ft which seems about right compared to the Kimber numbers, Kimber gets roughly double the capacitance, half the inductance due to construction of the cable.
I also wonder if I should rebuild the impedance correction circuit, as much has changed (with the addition of sub-woofers). I think I'll start without and try and modify my existing correction if I get curious enough. If I do seem to have a preference for the impedance correction, I'll build an updated new version that I can place out of sight behind the arrays.
If you say no good for the top end, the KK 8PR, what was it that didn't suit your needs? They seem to have lower than usual inductance (due to the braiding) while keeping capacitance at reasonable numbers. (link).
KK 8PR - 90pF/ft - .041uH/ft - 11 AWG
Canare 4S11 - 16,7 pF/ft - 0.10uH/ft - 11 AWG (link) The capacitance figure seems off...
or
According to this measurement. Canare states 45 pF/ft which seems about right compared to the Kimber numbers, Kimber gets roughly double the capacitance, half the inductance due to construction of the cable.
Last edited:
Another source for Canare 4S11: Ram Electronics HS Measurements and Analysis | Audioholics
0.120uH/ft and 40pF/ft, not terribly different from the expensive Iconoclast sold by Bluejeanscable.
0.120uH/ft and 40pF/ft, not terribly different from the expensive Iconoclast sold by Bluejeanscable.
"If you say no good for the top end, the KK 8PR, what was it that didn't suit your needs?"
Comparing 20 ft runs on each side (when I had central amps and long speaker leads) myself and a friend listened to KK 8PR and 8TC. For whatever reason, which I won't pretend to know, the TC line tfpe insulated cable sounded more life like.
Then we switched it out with KK bi-focal cable and it was night and day difference. But at 5-10 times the price it better be.
Again, law of diminishing returns.
Better to have long pre-amp leads than speaker leads.
Canare's quadstar mic cable works fabulous for the money. Can't state that enough. But again I tended to prefer the twisted, 22ga., three conductor, tfpe insulated, Silver plated copper with overall screen(shield) cable.
Comparing 20 ft runs on each side (when I had central amps and long speaker leads) myself and a friend listened to KK 8PR and 8TC. For whatever reason, which I won't pretend to know, the TC line tfpe insulated cable sounded more life like.
Then we switched it out with KK bi-focal cable and it was night and day difference. But at 5-10 times the price it better be.
Again, law of diminishing returns.
Better to have long pre-amp leads than speaker leads.
Canare's quadstar mic cable works fabulous for the money. Can't state that enough. But again I tended to prefer the twisted, 22ga., three conductor, tfpe insulated, Silver plated copper with overall screen(shield) cable.
Thanks Troy,
I'm not looking for one universal answer (yet 😉) but like to hear about peoples experiences. When we swapped several amps, some worked very well, others not as good. I spoke about a synergy, and that's basically what I am looking for. The combination of parts that just works.
So far I've heard differences between DAC's and amplifiers, while never expecting it based on what I was taught or had read. A similar story about adding a conjugate network.
At the very least it makes me keep an open mind about the little things that can influence our perception. Even if I cannot always find a rational explanation. However even the old Pass Labs paper hinted at differences when one drops the impedance which also raises the capacitance. Combine that with a certain amplifier profile and the devil will be in the details.
Even the audibility of phase has been a long debate. I remain convinced it does play its part, but not as big of a part as I thought it would play when I started my journey.
Overall the speaker/room interaction has had the biggest influence I could find. Playing with perception of cross talk has been one of the most fun an interesting experiments I have done. And I will continue to do more, once everything is back up again.
In a way, the added filters to my array are a preparation for the planned experiments on that subject. As arrays, due to their specific room interaction, make this cross talk phenomenon more obvious.
I'm not looking for one universal answer (yet 😉) but like to hear about peoples experiences. When we swapped several amps, some worked very well, others not as good. I spoke about a synergy, and that's basically what I am looking for. The combination of parts that just works.
So far I've heard differences between DAC's and amplifiers, while never expecting it based on what I was taught or had read. A similar story about adding a conjugate network.
At the very least it makes me keep an open mind about the little things that can influence our perception. Even if I cannot always find a rational explanation. However even the old Pass Labs paper hinted at differences when one drops the impedance which also raises the capacitance. Combine that with a certain amplifier profile and the devil will be in the details.
Even the audibility of phase has been a long debate. I remain convinced it does play its part, but not as big of a part as I thought it would play when I started my journey.
Overall the speaker/room interaction has had the biggest influence I could find. Playing with perception of cross talk has been one of the most fun an interesting experiments I have done. And I will continue to do more, once everything is back up again.
In a way, the added filters to my array are a preparation for the planned experiments on that subject. As arrays, due to their specific room interaction, make this cross talk phenomenon more obvious.
"Overall the speaker/room interaction has had the biggest influence I could find."
100% agree. You couldn't be more correct.
Law of diminishing returns.
How far are you willing to chase that rabbit down the hole? When does the cost outweigh the gain?
Depends on your income I guess.
At one time that was my quest, absolute accuracy. It is not obtainable. That was a hard lesson.
Like the Porsche 911 model, I admire your steady incremental improvements. Constant movement, evaluation and correction.
Very well done.
100% agree. You couldn't be more correct.
Law of diminishing returns.
How far are you willing to chase that rabbit down the hole? When does the cost outweigh the gain?
Depends on your income I guess.
At one time that was my quest, absolute accuracy. It is not obtainable. That was a hard lesson.
Like the Porsche 911 model, I admire your steady incremental improvements. Constant movement, evaluation and correction.
Very well done.
If you so desired, you could model the wires in your Vituix sim. A cable is a distributed RLC transmission line that can be built up of many elements, just like a line array's vertical radiator. the model could be pretty lumpy for audio.
I'm sure the effect of the "R" would show up for a long enough cable. The L and C just make a low pass filter that can be equalized if/when it gets significant and probably is implicitly given you are equalizing in room measurements.
In the high speed interconnects world where I used to work, they have gotten pretty good at equalizing cables with FIR, able to send 100 Ghz digital data over short distances. The equalizer applies an analog/analog like first order rising gain with frequency for the cable/PC trace low pass filter and then uses FIR to correct inter-symbol interference due to the waveform changing more rapidly than otherwise permitted by the cable's bandwidth. That FIR wouldn't be needed in audio. It would be interesting to see if/when the cable bandwidth started to shade or add phase shift to the upper end of the audio spectrum.
Well that was getting off topic. I just meant to point out that you have the means to investigate although Vituix might reach its limits before you had a realistic cable model added to your speaker model.
Cool Fluid,
I do the same thing, and have also found a Q of 0.7, works for a series of shelving filters spaced an octave or two apart.
I used to do this in rephase with linear phase shelving imbedded into the FIR file. But that of course has the downside of locking in a fixed tilt.
When I finally noticed how little effect an IIR shelving series has on phase, I moved to an IIR series on the input, that effects everything pre-xovers, and allows easy real time adjustment.
Maybe the only thing i might be doing different, is i like a seesaw-type tilt that hinges on a fulcrum close to middle of audio spectrum.
Below are measured processor traces of varying tilt, fulcrum around 700Hz.
What i really like about the current setup is that the displayed curves and any tilts in between, are continuously available from twisting a single knob.
For me IIR/minimum phase is the right choice, I want the phase to change with the magnitude for this.
That is probably due to the level, I tried a flat to 1K and tilt after that and it sounded better the louder it was. Mitch uses something like this along with Jriver's dynamic EQ to boost low frequencies when listening at a lower level. The pink trace in your graph looks pretty close to what I use.
Hi,
I switched to starquad some 20 years ago after rewiring a full studio in Paris where they had issues with RFI/EMF. The improvement in this case was spectacular so i decided to stay with it whatever i do.
Extreme and not always nescessary but i experienced some interesting things: line level starquads from differents manufacturers have different sounds of their own.
From the one i've heard/used: Mogami mic/line level ( neglex 2534) have a bit of a 'plastic' sound to them. I don't know how to define it otherwise... despite this this is the one i've choosen as i'm used to it and it is overall flatter/true to me.
Canare sound nice but is more flatering in the high end. Not as easy to work with as Mogami though ( much more rigid/firm). It may not be an issue for home use but when you have 96 points bantam patchbay and cues of a whole studio it makes a big difference! Overall this is a very fine cable but i suspect the flatering effect in the high could come from microphonics. I'm not sure about this but this is what i suspect.
Gotham Audio starquad: overall nice too. Found them a bit dull sounding versus Canare. Closer to Mogami.
In comparison to standard construction Mogami (2549 and the likes) they all (starquad) sounds a bit different but nothing to write a book about it imho and if you are in a troubled area about perturbation and if your connections are symmetrical they solve issues.
Now the interesting part to me: once convinced by line and mic starquad i decided to try them between my amp and loudspeakers.
After some research (more than 10 years ago) i found only Mogami offer easily accessible to me at that time so i tried their 3104.
It is a real PITA to work with (4x4mm2) except if you use Speakon but... broadband ( without going multiamp) it gave the feeling to have gained an octave both spectre extreme. I was in disbelief and asked some friends to test them and tell me what they thoughts about them ( without biasing them: just try it and tell if you feel a difference). Same conclusion each time.
Then i decided to use 2921( 4x2,5mm2) for mid and 2972 (4x2mm2) for tweeter in multiamp config.
Despite being differents cable and against common advice about multiamp and use of same cable for each ways i'm more than pleased with end results and it stopped my needs to experiment with loudspeaker cable anymore.
I got same feeling of low end and high extension ( maybe even more on high end with the lower diam cable for tweet), mid didn't suffer at all either. Maybe with different drivers i could spot differences but i'm not even sure. All length are 3m and equals of course.
I have no explanation about why they give that feeling of extension. Off course you can make simulation and math to see why but it doesn't correlate to the feeling...
Worth a try imho the 3104 on sub at least ( and as it is pro stuff they are not 'this' overpriced, but not cheap though).
Fluid,
The flat to 1k then diving response is what i use too. Was first introduced to it after reading some B.Katz post about it. Worked great to me. I use a 0,5db/octave attenuation and 'straight' line attenuation ( thanks to Mesa eq in Dolby Lake). From Katz's explanation it mimics the behavior of air/instrument interaction iirc. For my own preference it is the most natural sounding correction with my mains and rooms they where in. Could be different with different room and loudspeakers. Second best is B&K curves to me.
I switched to starquad some 20 years ago after rewiring a full studio in Paris where they had issues with RFI/EMF. The improvement in this case was spectacular so i decided to stay with it whatever i do.
Extreme and not always nescessary but i experienced some interesting things: line level starquads from differents manufacturers have different sounds of their own.
From the one i've heard/used: Mogami mic/line level ( neglex 2534) have a bit of a 'plastic' sound to them. I don't know how to define it otherwise... despite this this is the one i've choosen as i'm used to it and it is overall flatter/true to me.
Canare sound nice but is more flatering in the high end. Not as easy to work with as Mogami though ( much more rigid/firm). It may not be an issue for home use but when you have 96 points bantam patchbay and cues of a whole studio it makes a big difference! Overall this is a very fine cable but i suspect the flatering effect in the high could come from microphonics. I'm not sure about this but this is what i suspect.
Gotham Audio starquad: overall nice too. Found them a bit dull sounding versus Canare. Closer to Mogami.
In comparison to standard construction Mogami (2549 and the likes) they all (starquad) sounds a bit different but nothing to write a book about it imho and if you are in a troubled area about perturbation and if your connections are symmetrical they solve issues.
Now the interesting part to me: once convinced by line and mic starquad i decided to try them between my amp and loudspeakers.
After some research (more than 10 years ago) i found only Mogami offer easily accessible to me at that time so i tried their 3104.
It is a real PITA to work with (4x4mm2) except if you use Speakon but... broadband ( without going multiamp) it gave the feeling to have gained an octave both spectre extreme. I was in disbelief and asked some friends to test them and tell me what they thoughts about them ( without biasing them: just try it and tell if you feel a difference). Same conclusion each time.
Then i decided to use 2921( 4x2,5mm2) for mid and 2972 (4x2mm2) for tweeter in multiamp config.
Despite being differents cable and against common advice about multiamp and use of same cable for each ways i'm more than pleased with end results and it stopped my needs to experiment with loudspeaker cable anymore.
I got same feeling of low end and high extension ( maybe even more on high end with the lower diam cable for tweet), mid didn't suffer at all either. Maybe with different drivers i could spot differences but i'm not even sure. All length are 3m and equals of course.
I have no explanation about why they give that feeling of extension. Off course you can make simulation and math to see why but it doesn't correlate to the feeling...
Worth a try imho the 3104 on sub at least ( and as it is pro stuff they are not 'this' overpriced, but not cheap though).
Fluid,
The flat to 1k then diving response is what i use too. Was first introduced to it after reading some B.Katz post about it. Worked great to me. I use a 0,5db/octave attenuation and 'straight' line attenuation ( thanks to Mesa eq in Dolby Lake). From Katz's explanation it mimics the behavior of air/instrument interaction iirc. For my own preference it is the most natural sounding correction with my mains and rooms they where in. Could be different with different room and loudspeakers. Second best is B&K curves to me.
Last edited:
Thanks krivium, I'll be sure to upgrade all interconnects to a star quad type of cable soon.
As I still have to build my 6 channel pré-amp, that would be a good time to switch those.
So far it's just the speaker wire, I'm actually breaking my own rules. Normally I change one thing at a time. This time around the room has changed, the speakers have changed plus I'm changing out the wires....
My subs have less than 40 cm of wire between amp and woofer. It's Supra Classic 4.0 as I could get that locally.
As I still have to build my 6 channel pré-amp, that would be a good time to switch those.
So far it's just the speaker wire, I'm actually breaking my own rules. Normally I change one thing at a time. This time around the room has changed, the speakers have changed plus I'm changing out the wires....
My subs have less than 40 cm of wire between amp and woofer. It's Supra Classic 4.0 as I could get that locally.
First coat of Double Coat boat paint is on. I think I'll do 2 more coats and after that rub it down just like I did with the subwoofers.
Second coat went on today. I'll update with pictures after the rub down, as it's way to shiny for my taste as is. (which wasn't any different the first time I coated them or the subwoofers)
On to the little things. Maybe a polishing of the baffles before they go back on etc. And I still need to paint my bolts, they still look a bit rusty. Almost there...
Rub down of the enclosure won't happen till it has dried for at least a week. So don't hold your breath just yet. 🙂
Still planning to frame the damping panel/poster to make it better match the updated living room. As said, lots of little things. I promise, I'll get there.
On to the little things. Maybe a polishing of the baffles before they go back on etc. And I still need to paint my bolts, they still look a bit rusty. Almost there...
Rub down of the enclosure won't happen till it has dried for at least a week. So don't hold your breath just yet. 🙂
Still planning to frame the damping panel/poster to make it better match the updated living room. As said, lots of little things. I promise, I'll get there.
A little make-up on the bolts, this is a very light coat of primer...
First sanded them with an abrasive pad, a light coat or two of paint will follow.
Just some light make-up, can't have too much paint in the key hole.
(just the amount of bolts in one speaker shown here)
First sanded them with an abrasive pad, a light coat or two of paint will follow.
Just some light make-up, can't have too much paint in the key hole.
(just the amount of bolts in one speaker shown here)
Attachments
Last edited: