|
Post by yves on May 29, 2013 16:51:38 GMT -5
The only thing that matters to me is that I can hear the difference. If other people say they can't, who am I to judge those people? That being said, even if I hadn't been at all sure about whether I can or can't hear the difference, it still wouldn't matter to me in the end. This is simply because choosing the same lengths would be the cheapest way for me to save myself from having to keep worrying altogether. >> The speed at which the signal travels through a cable is what's irrelevant. It's how electromagnetic induction affects the signal that does matter. (Well... to my ears, it does).<< Huh? I fail to see how relatively minor differences in speaker cable length would translate into *anything* audible - or even measurable. I am totally willing to hear you out about this, but please be sure that your explanation comports with well-known, and thoroughly proven, electromagnetic theory and measurements... -RW-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2013 17:07:28 GMT -5
Both of those suggestions are first-rate and you'd be hard-pressed to do any better no matter how much money you spend. I particularly liked the fact that BlueJeans uses a unique "welding" process for attaching bananas or spades. For this reason I would be most likely to go with the BlueJeans product if I wanted pre-made cables for my system. AND, the BlueJeans cables are in-wall rated, a BIG deal if you're gonna be pulling cable thru walls and ceilings. The C2G cabling looks to be very nice as well for the DIYer, and the price is right at about 40-50 cents/ft. There is absolutely NO NEED to spend more money for speaker cables, this provides the proper electrical specs. and should be virtually audibly transparent. One other mfgr. of cables that I have have good experience with is KnuConceptz. They make a very nice cable for the same 40-50 cents/ft. www.amazon.com/KnuKonceptz-Kable-Gauge-Copper-Speaker/dp/B006VP86EU/ref=cm_cr_dp_asin_lnkKeep in mind, though, that neither of these offerings are in-wall rated. And you damn sure do not want to have the insurance company find out about that in the event of a fire or such. So, if you want pre-made cables and/or in-wall rated cables, go with BlueJeans. If you want to build your own, look to the C2G or KnuConceptz offerings. Thank you, 1960Brookwood, an excellent post - ya done good, son!! -RW-
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 29, 2013 17:24:41 GMT -5
I am using a pair of in-akustik Reference LS-1002 bi-wiring speaker cables between my XPA-2 and my Canton Vento 890.2 DCs. I am not using any plugs on these cables, and they measure 3 meters each.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2013 17:33:56 GMT -5
Yep, IMHO just twisting the strands together and connecting directly to the amp and/or speaker terminals is the best way. Any type of metal to metal interface using wire and connectors is bound to impart some sonic signature, albeit very small in most cases....
Good on ya, Yves!
-RW-
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 29, 2013 19:40:46 GMT -5
Thanks! Because these are relatively thick bi-wiring cables, it took a small bit of extra effort for me connect them to the binding posts of my XPA-2, though. Before the FedEx truck delivered my XPA-2, I had already twisted together the strands on both ends of the cables and I had also already applied a very small bit of soldering tin to the sharp tips to keep the strands from unraveling or breaking off. However, bi-wiring the XPA-2 means there's two wires to each one of all four of its binding posts. So I found out the holes in its binding posts are too small for two thick wires to be able fit through separately. Luckily, I managed to work around this problem by cutting off the four tips of one end of the speaker cable, then twisting the strands of both white wires together as well as twisting the strands of both black wires together, and finally repeating these steps for the other speaker cable. Yep, IMHO just twisting the strands together and connecting directly to the amp and/or speaker terminals is the best way. Any type of metal to metal interface using wire and connectors is bound to impart some sonic signature, albeit very small in most cases.... Good on ya, Yves! -RW-
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 29, 2013 20:25:06 GMT -5
I like using Canare 4S11, (4) 14 AWG stranded wires. If you want two conductors you connect the two pairs together for an 11 AWG pair. If you later want to bi-wire or bi-amp you just separate them back to 4 individual wires. They are already lightly twisted inside an exterior insulation for additional noise rejection. Monoprice also makes a less expensive version but the insulation is definitely inferior as may be the copper. The Canare insulation is thick and flexible, it's a nice product. Blue Jeans sells it too: www.bluejeanscable.com/store/speaker/
|
|
|
Post by me262 on May 29, 2013 23:37:29 GMT -5
Ok, so it seems like the blue jean cable option, the 5000UE, is a pretty good option, coming in at 52 for 100 ft, which should be enough and is within my budget. I think I will skip plugs for now because I am not planning nor could I move or alter my system heavily (the apartment is not the largest and it is already over powered for the space), and when you think about it, IF plugs are in the system, they can only worsten the sound because its another element for the electricity to travel though, again I say if, but if I dont need the benefit of the plugs why pay for them right haha.
Now for YVES, I have to ask, how in the world did you get your cables into your speaker terminals like that? did you twist them together, stick in through the top, then use a screw driver or allen wrench to bend it through the holes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 0:52:23 GMT -5
It appears to me that Yves simply inserted the twisted, bare wires into the holes used for banana plugs. As long as you don't move the cables or trip over them this should work quite well. It seems it would also be possible to insert a wire thru the hole you find behind the threads as well as using the banana plug hole. This would allow one to bi-wire (buy-wire) if they choose to do so.
FYI, I do not believe that there is any audible benefit to be had from running bi-wire cables other than that which is derived from using a thicker gauge cable. Unless, of course, you sell wires for profit - then you can hear the dollar bills of your customers rustling in your pocket...<g>
-RW-
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 30, 2013 3:29:09 GMT -5
Without using plugs, inserting them like that was the only option available because, unlike the XPA-2, my speakers have terminals without a hole behind the threads. As for bi-wiring giving you better sound or not, it depends. I always cringe when people claim it doesn't even make a difference from a purely electrical standpoint so that it can't ever be audible, even in theory, and I have learned the hard way the world of audiophoolery is full of those who are biased towards hearing no difference. (You know... all amps sound the same; Redbook CD is still 'the perfect sound forever'; 192 kHz music downloads make no sense indeed; double-blind listening tests are the holy grail, also indeed; our measurements are always more accurate than human hearing because your ears are microphones and your brain is a tape recorder... blah, blah, and blah, 'go check out your ears, and while you're at it, go check out your brain' mentality type thing... always the same individuals always unwilling to accept the simple fact audio is part science, part subjectiveness, yet always at the same time also always those same individuals subjectively accusing other people of being delusional, which then makes me just want to cringe even more until I die.) ;D It appears to me that Yves simply inserted the twisted, bare wires into the holes used for banana plugs. As long as you don't move the cables or trip over them this should work quite well. It seems it would also be possible to insert a wire thru the hole you find behind the threads as well as using the banana plug hole. This would allow one to bi-wire (buy-wire) if they choose to do so. FYI, I do not believe that there is any audible benefit to be had from running bi-wire cables other than that which is derived from using a thicker gauge cable. Unless, of course, you sell wires for profit - then you can hear the dollar bills of your customers rustling in your pocket...<g> -RW-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 4:30:24 GMT -5
I *love* sparring (in a good-natured way) with Yves - he is always well-spoken and thoughtful in his replies. Nonetheless, bi-wiring effectively simply increases the gauge of the wire running between the amp and the speakers. You can achieve the same effect (negligible, IMHO, if at all) by using a single, thicker gauge cable. And unless your cable run is extremely long, > 75 ft. or so, anything larger than 12 ga. wire will yield no audible benefit providing the cable meets a basic standard of "goodness" regarding the LCR values.
I'm of another mind when it comes to hi-rez recordings - although I find more benefit is derived from increasing the word length (from 16 bits to 24 bits) than in going to extreme sample rates like 192 kHz. There is little, if any, benefit from exceeding 24 bits and 48 kHz for your music files. And I will flatly state that there is NO benefit to be had by going from 96 kHz to 192 kHz when comparing 24 bit music files.
And I most certainly do not think that all amps sound the same. Obviously tube and sand amps can exhibit marked differences, mostly due to the prevalence of 2nd order harmonics that are found in most tube designs. I definitely find there are real, audible benefits from using wide bandwidth and high-current designs when comparing solid state (sand) amps.
I also thoroughly believe that we have most certainly not figured out how to measure all of the things that affect the quality of the signals we listen to. And, just like Yves, I also believe that audio is part science and part art. The science part is fairly well, but not entirely, understood. The "art" part is not, and we still have a ways to go before we suss that properly.
Finally, I do not believe double-blind testing is the be-all and end-all for determining what improvements we hear when we make changes to our systems. But it damn sure is much better than what most audiophiles use, which is not even a smidgen of some type of control sample to use as a baseline for testing their hypotheses. It is used quite effectively in all of the other sciences and it should be used much more often that it is now in the audio realm...
-RW-
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 30, 2013 14:52:08 GMT -5
Bi-wiring does more than simply increase the gauge. It increases the length of the path between both internal crossovers of the loudspeaker by twice the length of the speaker cable minus the length of the link between the Low Frequency binding post and the High Frequency binding post of the loudspeaker, and it does that not only once for each loudspeaker, but twice (once for the negative and once for the positive connection points of the crossovers). More importantly on top of this, it places the binding post of the power amp halfway down this path on both occasions. If you call that electrically equivalent to mono-wiring, you are myoptic (bad joke... soz, I did it on purpose). Now, as to whether the effect can be audible. Not if gear heads can agree what day it is, it can't... which obviously means yes, of course it can be audible, but that doesn't also mean it will necessarily always be audible, nor that it will necessarily always be an improvement even if it *is* audible anyway after all – so it greatly depends on a great deal of factors in ways that are too complex for most science experts to even meaningfully discuss. I *love* sparring (in a good-natured way) with Yves - he is always well-spoken and thoughtful in his replies. Nonetheless, bi-wiring effectively simply increases the gauge of the wire running between the amp and the speakers. You can achieve the same effect (negligible, IMHO, if at all) by using a single, thicker gauge cable. And unless your cable run is extremely long, > 75 ft. or so, anything larger than 12 ga. wire will yield no audible benefit providing the cable meets a basic standard of "goodness" regarding the LCR values. I'm of another mind when it comes to hi-rez recordings - although I find more benefit is derived from increasing the word length (from 16 bits to 24 bits) than in going to extreme sample rates like 192 kHz. There is little, if any, benefit from exceeding 24 bits and 48 kHz for your music files. And I will flatly state that there is NO benefit to be had by going from 96 kHz to 192 kHz when comparing 24 bit music files. And I most certainly do not think that all amps sound the same. Obviously tube and sand amps can exhibit marked differences, mostly due to the prevalence of 2nd order harmonics that are found in most tube designs. I definitely find there are real, audible benefits from using wide bandwidth and high-current designs when comparing solid state (sand) amps. I also thoroughly believe that we have most certainly not figured out how to measure all of the things that affect the quality of the signals we listen to. And, just like Yves, I also believe that audio is part science and part art. The science part is fairly well, but not entirely, understood. The "art" part is not, and we still have a ways to go before we suss that properly. Finally, I do not believe double-blind testing is the be-all and end-all for determining what improvements we hear when we make changes to our systems. But it damn sure is much better than what most audiophiles use, which is not even a smidgen of some type of control sample to use as a baseline for testing their hypotheses. It is used quite effectively in all of the other sciences and it should be used much more often that it is now in the audio realm... -RW-
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,439
|
Post by DYohn on May 30, 2013 15:20:08 GMT -5
Bi-wiring does more than simply increase the gauge. It increases the length of the path between both internal crossovers of the loudspeaker by twice the length of the speaker cable minus the length of the link between the Low Frequency binding post and the High Frequency binding post of the loudspeaker, and it does that not only once for each loudspeaker, but twice (once for the negative and once for the positive connection points of the crossovers). More importantly on top of this, it places the binding post of the power amp halfway down this path on both occasions. If you call that electrically equivalent to mono-wiring, you are myoptic (bad joke... soz, I did it on purpose). What? It increases the length of wire between the crossovers? I suppose you can see it that way, although there is no purpose to that whatever and is infact incorrect as what it really does is shorten the path from amplifier to HP crossover by the length of the jumpers. Do you think the HP and LP filters are connected together in some way other than sharing an input? And to what end would your theoretical length increase effect the signal in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 30, 2013 18:10:20 GMT -5
Do you think the HP and LP filters are connected together in some way other than sharing an input? Not only do I think that, but I can actually even see it with my eyes closed. In a mono-wiring scheme, the signal caused by back-EMF (back- Electro Motive Force) travels back through the crossover circuit and back into the power amp's circuit via the speaker cable, but at the same time also travels through the removable links that are between the binding posts of the speaker. Bi-wiring replaces each one of these removable links with a wire that runs from the speaker all the way to the power amp and back again. The removable links do not run from the speaker to the power amp and back again, obviously. Instead, they run from the speaker immediately to the speaker, and the assumption that this doesn't matter from an electrical standpoint is simply invalid.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,439
|
Post by DYohn on May 30, 2013 18:30:00 GMT -5
No, it's not invalid. In fact, your assumptions that (1) back EMF has any significant impact on loudspeaker or crossover performance, and (2) that the electrical distance change created by a few inches or a few feet one way or the other makes any difference to how the signal behaves, and (3) that the various elements of a passive crossover do not see the same signals at their inputs at all times regardless of how they are connected to the amplifier are all erroneous. It simply makes no difference whatsoever. Electrically the two connection methods (using jumpers or using wire) are completely analogous to one another.
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 31, 2013 9:52:52 GMT -5
(1) Back-EMF does have a significant impact on loudspeaker performance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_characteristics_of_dynamic_loudspeakers(2) I have already explained (twice) that the total distance added between both crossovers of each speaker is not a few inches or a few feet, but four times the length of the speaker cable minus the lengths of the removable links. (3) www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/78764-bi-wire-speaker-cable-test.htmlNo, it's not invalid. In fact, your assumptions that (1) back EMF has any significant impact on loudspeaker performance, and (2) that the electrical distance change created by a few inches or a few feet one way or the other makes any difference to how the signal behaves, and (3) that the various elements of a passive crossover do not see the same signals at their inputs at all times regardless of how they are connected to the amplifier are all erroneous. It simply makes no difference whatsoever. Electrically the two connection methods (using jumpers or using wire) are completely analogous to one another.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,439
|
Post by DYohn on May 31, 2013 10:52:51 GMT -5
Ah Yves. You may believe what you like of course. I'm a bit busy today but I will address your concerns later this evening. Do you want the math or do you prefer that I also find links on the web?
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 31, 2013 11:46:00 GMT -5
Not to enter this particular discussion but obliquely, I'll toss my two cents (maybe less) into the pot. I hear significant differences between my Morrow bi-wire cables and all of my other (single pair) cables. Are the differences due to wire resistance, back EMF, insulation, jumpers, or listener expectations? Couldn't say except for the last. I truly believe that I could pick out the Morrows vs any of my other cables with my eyes closed.
Does it mean that the bi-wire configuration is the cause? No. Does it mean that the bi-wire configuration ISN'T the cause? No.
I just don't know. Measure away, you crazy meter-readers - I hear what I hear! ;D
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,439
|
Post by DYohn on May 31, 2013 11:47:56 GMT -5
I have a few minutes, let me jot down a few facts for you. First, the back EMF from a woofer is created by the voice coil movement in the magnetic field, since every dynamic motor is also a dynamic generator. The back EMF from a tweeter is so small it is completely negligible. It is desirable to prevent the back-EMF from a woofer from reaching the tweeter, as it creates intermodulation distortion in the tweeter. This is not an issue in a parallel crossover design since the net impedance of the return to the amplifier is zero plus any impedance added from the speaker wire. Zero impedance means infinite damping factor and thus the back EMF is suppressed and has no effect on the signal. (The importance of damping factors at all is debatable, but for now let's assume you want a high number.) If the system uses a series crossover this effect CAN be significant - but a series Xover system cannot be separated and bi-wired in the way you show. Indeed, in a bi-wire situation you are actually INCREASING the impedance between the speaker and the amplifier by adding speaker wire, which lowers the damping factor. A jumper adds much less impedance to the system and is, in this respect, better. If you'd like to learn about DF here's a couple well-written papers from audio engineers, not a discussion on a forum. www.diyspeakers.net/articles.php
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on May 31, 2013 11:54:28 GMT -5
...in a bi-wire situation you are actually INCREASING the impedance between the speaker and the amplifier by adding speaker wire, which lowers the damping factor... Hmmm - Even with the jumpers in place, the resistance of the speaker wires (both the + wire and the - wire combined) are in series with the crossover. With bi-wiring, the resistance of the speaker wires are STILL in series with the crossover. Whether the woofer and tweeter use the same wire or whether the woofer and tweeter each have their own wire - the series resistance is still there. I don't see how jumpering the woofer and tweeter changes the wire resistance for either of them. What am I missing?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,439
|
Post by DYohn on May 31, 2013 12:13:00 GMT -5
Yes, sorry. Although I can think of no example where speaker wire has less impedance than a jumper bar, I should have said "might be" not "are." But now answer me this. What is the frequency of woofer back-EMF? The answer is it is exactly the same as the woofer signal, only with reversed polarity. Now what is the function of the tweeter crossover? it is to filter out the woofer frequencies and prevent them from reaching the tweeter. So how much of the back-EMF signal actually reaches the tweeter in a parallel crossover? The correct answer is zero.
|
|