Best speaker cable for CLS?

[C.A.P]

Owning CLS I have some authoritative answers. I just had a set of Transparent Ultra speaker cables in my system and they were OK. ($2900 Retail) They are a Multi strand design. with a Teflon coating over what appears to be 2, 6 gage copper wires and a electrical box that evens out the load in the cable. This I can tell you the SOLID core MOOK Audio cables set them Transparent to the Locker room. They work much better with the CLS and any ML I have tried. The design is a Multi solid core design with a proprietary inter weaving and twisting of teflon coated coper wire. They are my reference cables until something bests them !

 

[Bernard]

Owning CLS I have some authoritative answers. I just had a set of Transparent Ultra speaker cables in my system and they were OK. ($2900 Retail) They are a Multi strand design. with a Teflon coating over what appears to be 2, 6 gage copper wires and a electrical box that evens out the load in the cable. This I can tell you the SOLID core MOOK Audio cables set them Transparent to the Locker room. They work much better with the CLS and any ML I have tried. The design is a Multi solid core design with a proprietary inter weaving and twisting of teflon coated coper wire. They are my reference cables until something bests them !

I am confused. To me a solid core design consists of a single conductor carrying the signal; and a multi-strand design consists of several insulated strands all carrying the signal. Now you mention a multi-solid core design, each solid core being teflon-coated and carrying the signal. But does that not now make them multi-strand since you have several solid cores carrying the signal? I'm missing something here; please explain.

 

[nsgarch]

question authority

Owning CLS I have some authoritative answers.

You meant to say, "personal experience", right?

 

[bostonaudi]

Try FMS cables.

 

[RichTeer]

I am confused. To me a solid core design consists of a single conductor carrying the signal; and a multi-strand design consists of several insulated strands all carrying the signal. Now you mention a multi-solid core design, each solid core being teflon-coated and carrying the signal. But does that not now make them multi-strand since you have several solid cores carrying the signal? I'm missing something here; please explain.

Multi-stranded cable is that which is made up of numerous uninsulated strands. It's the usual stuff available at most AV retailers.

 

[nsgarch]

Multi-stranded cable is that which is made up of numerous uninsulated strands. It's the usual stuff available at most AV retailers.

Rich, it is confusing, if seen as an either/or issue, which it is not. It's a matter of degree,

First let me correct your impression that multi-stranded audio cable is made of uninsulated strands. It is not. You might be thinking of multi-stranded electric cord which is stranded for flexibility, and which strands are not insulated. In audio cables, the object is to get certain frequencies to follow certain paths (which frequencies follow what paths is a choice the designer has to make.) But each strand (or path) must be kept electrically separate from the others.

If you have enough insulated strands such as the "angel hair" you'll find in Straightwire, most Cardas, MIT, and Monster, to name just a few, you create a huge amount of capacitance, but you can also achieve a cable that has excellent timing characteristics, so the news isn't all bad. And such cables are very effective for a wide variety of speaker/amp applications (I'm discussing speaker cables here, though some of this applies to IC's too)

Roger Sanders was the person who finally convinced me that an amplifier driving an electrostatic panel, electrically "sees right through" (to quote Roger) the electrostat's step-up transformer(s) to the very capacitive panel itself. For an explanation of why this calls for special speaker cable characteristics, go here: http://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/Cables WP.htm

ANYWAY ;-) it doesn't hurt to have a few strands! If I recall, the MartinLogan Music Charge cable had 6 or 8 I think. The Cardas Golden Reference has several hundred!

 

[C.A.P]

I am confused. To me a solid core design consists of a single conductor carrying the signal; and a multi-strand design consists of several insulated strands all carrying the signal. Now you mention a multi-solid core design, each solid core being teflon-coated and carrying the signal. But does that not now make them multi-strand since you have several solid cores carrying the signal? I'm missing something here; please explain.

Multi stand cables are exactly what was stated. Several thin runs of small uninsulated copper or silver wire with one insulated outer shell.
Multi strand core wire means several runs of insulated solid copper wire (or silver) with the outer shell bing insulated .

You meant to say, "personal experience", right?

From "personal experience" comes AUTHORITATIVE answers!

 

[RichTeer]

Rich, it is confusing, if seen as an either/or issue, which it is not. It's a matter of degree,

First let me correct your impression that multi-stranded audio cable is made of uninsulated strands. It is not. You might be thinking of multi-stranded electric cord which is stranded for flexibility, and which strands are not insulated.

Funny, I have experience of many brands of speaker (and interconnect) cable that use multiple, non-insulated strands. I also have experience of cables that use multiple insulated strands. For an example of the former, see the "More Images" tab of www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=1602 (not that I particularly endorse Monster's cables!)

Although the cables I'm describing have a topology reminiscent of electric cable, I'm not thinking about that at the moment.

I think we can agree that multi-stranded cable can be made up from both multiple insulated strands, and multiple non-insulated strands.

 

[nsgarch]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">

Originally Posted by Bernard I am confused. To me a solid core design consists of a single conductor carrying the signal; and a multi-strand design consists of several insulated strands all carrying the signal. Now you mention a multi-solid core design, each solid core being Teflon-coated and carrying the signal. But does that not now make them multi-strand since you have several solid cores carrying the signal? I'm missing something here; please explain.

Bernard, as I explained to Rich, the solid/stranded issue with respect to spkr cable (and IC's too) is really a matter of degree. You can have a conductor consisting of 3 or 4 either separately insulated or uninsulated wires twisted together, and still consider it a 'solid conductor', and that bundle will be in its own insulated jacket. On the other hand, audio cable consisting of > 50 strands (usually hundreds of strands!) of various sizes are designed to force different frequencies to take longer or shorter paths so they all reach the other end at the same time! Originally conceived by Bruce Brisson for Monster, in order for this design to work properly, (and despite the pronouncements of self-proclaimed authorities,) ALL these wires, even the finest, are insulated with a hard epoxy coating (just like transformer wires) to keep the signals from jumping around between conductors. This is why you need a soldering pot to terminate AQ, MIT, Straightwire, Monster, etc. -- because a soldering gun won't get hot enough to melt off that hard insulation!

The only fine silver or copper wire in audio which is not epoxy insulated is braid shield, where the wires need to make contact to provide effective shielding.

The drawback of the multi strand design when it comes to speaker cables (not interconnects) is that the powerful signal sent by the amp through multiple, electrically separated wires, creates a lot of 'mini capacitors' which don't seem to effect electromechanical designs but have a negative effect on the sound of electrostatic design. For your further edification, here is MonsterCable's description of their cables (both solid and multi-strand). Pay special attention to the PEX (epoxy) insulation mentioned in connection with their multi strand cables. The red italics are mine ;-)

______________________________________________________________​

Reference-quality analog audio interconnects with patented Bandwidth Balanced® Construction and Time Correct® Multi-Gauge Wire Networks for extraordinary detail and harmonic balance in your favorite music.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=700 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=10></TD><TD class=medium vAlign=top align=left width=550><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=550 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>M850 High Performance Stereo Audio Cable
Premium stereo audio cable for serious audiophiles who demand the best from their precision audio systems. Features two way Time Correct® multi-gauge wire networks and PEX™ dielectric for smooth, extended high-frequency response, wider soundstage, deeper, tighter bass and pinpoint imaging.

M1000 High Performance Subwoofer Cable

Ultimate Subwoofer Cable with Exclusive QuadriPole® Construction and TriPole™ Solid Core Bass Conductors
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[robertawillisjr]

<<snip>> so how about this idea: Anyone got any spare cables laying around that they'd be willing to offer up as a travelling package to MLC members interested in doing some comparisons? I have a spare set of Monster M1's from 1988 that I'll throw into the mix...

Well isn't this what the Cable Company does? You get to audition cables from their "library" and decide. I don't know exactly how it works but I am sure there is some up front charge.

 

[DTB300]

All this scientific this, technology that, thinner, thicker, blah blah blah. A quote from a manufacture that I read sums all of this up for almost EVERYTHING in this fine hobby of ours...

“Both audiophiles and we professionals tend to regard audio as a science, quantifiable and objective in most ways. It is, however, more of an art, perceptual and highly subjective, with wide variation between listeners.”

Stop worrying about all the mumbo jumbo and sit back and listen to the music. If YOU LIKE the change, then it is a fine component or addition to YOUR setup, not what others think, dictate, or spell out with figures, graphs, and numbers.

 

[nsgarch]

All this scientific this, technology that, thinner, thicker, blah blah blah. A quote from a manufacture that I read sums all of this up for almost EVERYTHING in this fine hobby of ours...“Both audiophiles and we professionals tend to regard audio as a science, quantifiable and objective in most ways. It is, however, more of an art, perceptual and highly subjective, with wide variation between listeners.”Stop worrying about all the mumbo jumbo and sit back and listen to the music. If YOU LIKE the change, then it is a fine component or addition to YOUR setup, not what others think, dictate, or spell out with figures, graphs, and numbers.

DTB -- to some degree the "if it sounds good to you, go with it" approach has merit, but only when obviously inappropriate solutions have been eliminated. This "elimination" process should be the part that's guided by scientific principals (but skipped by most hobbiests for lack of knowledge) -- then our personal intuition/preferences (the "art" part) can be allowed to confidently determine our own final choice. In other words, science should always provide the short list, so that personal intuition/taste/preference can be used with confidence to make the final decision.

Let me use this current discussion as an example: Science (rules governing electronics in this case) predict that low capacitance (<20 pF/ft) speaker cable with a little bit of resistance will present the optimum load to an amplifier driving an electrostatic speaker. OK, that's the science part. That eliminates (I'm guessing) a good 80% of speaker cable choices (since the majority of them, regardless of price, have capacitance far in excess of 20pF/ft!) But of the candidates remaining, at least you know they'll all make your amp and speakers happy, you just have to decide which one(s) "sounds good to you." Just remember that the "sounds good to you" part should come at the end of the process, after you've done all the science you can. That's how great sounding systems are created!

 

[DTB300]

DTB -- to some degree the "if it sounds good to you, go with it" approach has merit, but only when obviously inappropriate solutions have been eliminated. This "elimination" process should be the part that's guided by scientific principals (but skipped by most hobbiests for lack of knowledge) -- then our personal intuition/preferences (the "art" part) can be allowed to confidently determine our own final choice. In other words, science should always provide the short list, so that personal intuition/taste/preference can be used with confidence to make the final decision.

Inappropriate is bad sound to me, not numbers. Inappropriate is buying a product over another just because others say to or strictly based on numbers or marketing hype/BS.

Science can sometimes explain things, and sometimes it cannot. It should not be a starting point, a middle point, or an ending point. At times it may explain why, but then at times the same numbers have a different ending. There are far too many OTHER variables with each persons setup, room, electric, interference, location, and on and on that there will always be differences. Now if we all lived in the big room where Jeff Z works, then we all would have the same reference point to work off of.

What happens when a person uses one of the "scientific bad cables" for their speakers, but they like the sound? Is this person wrong in stating "they" like the sound of a particular cable, even though the scientist will say they are wrong?

Too many times, people get so HUNG UP on stats/numbers and based how it should sound, rather than just listening and making the determination for themselves.

And unfortunately our industry drives this "numbers" game.

 

[nsgarch]

I was explaining how both science and art contribute to the listening/evaluation process. And when to apply each for a productive out come. I'm not sure how your "just listening" advice would work? I have neither the money or the time to assemble ALL the speaker cables in the world and go through them one at a time! Nor do I have the 'sonic memory' to remember everything I heard. Do you?

 

[Jeff Zaret]

"Now if we all lived in the big room where Jeff Z works"

Oh you mean this little room ?

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/503/the-worlds-largest-anechoic-chamber

I think the sound would not be as good as we hope in here but it would be fun to try.

Jeff

 

[DTB300]

Oh you mean this little room ?

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/503/the-worlds-largest-anechoic-chamber

Just think audio listening while testing out your new jet engine

I was explaining how both science and art play contribute to the listening/evaluation process. And when to apply each for a productive out come. I'm not sure how your "just listening" advice would work? I have neither the money or the time to assemble ALL the speaker cables in the world and go through them one at a time! Nor do I have the 'sonic memory' to remember everything I heard. Do you?

I do not use science for my listening/evaluation process, I set a budget, look at what is available and listen. Yes I listen. If you want to purchase based on science as your initial source then you may be limiting your selection base - again just MO.

I have seen many boasts of why such a component or cable SHOULD be so great - number this, construction that, precious metals, single crystal, space-age parts, etc., only to find out it blows. Thankfully there are designers and manufactures who have deviated from the typically followed path and developed a great product.

IMO for cables, one has to pick out a group of cables and give them a try - many of the usual names are touted all over the 'net with even more fly by night companies popping up all the time to try to take advantage of the cable industry. Do I REMEMBER all of the cables I have tried with my SONIC MEMORY. I do remember a bunch and their sound, but I also keep a journal of all my testing since my "Mulder" abilities left many years ago.

You cannot drive every car in the world either but at some point you make a decision on the few you want to try and go from there. And I buy my cars the same way, I set a budget, go out and drive them, and pick the one I enjoy driving the most.

Obviously we disagree on how to purchase cables for our setup, so to end this, I say we agree to disagree

 

[eknuds01]

DTB -- to some degree the "if it sounds good to you, go with it" approach has merit, but only when obviously inappropriate solutions have been eliminated. This "elimination" process should be the part that's guided by scientific principals (but skipped by most hobbiests for lack of knowledge) -- then our personal intuition/preferences (the "art" part) can be allowed to confidently determine our own final choice. In other words, science should always provide the short list, so that personal intuition/taste/preference can be used with confidence to make the final decision.

Let me use this current discussion as an example: Science (rules governing electronics in this case) predict that low capacitance (<20 pF/ft) speaker cable with a little bit of resistance will present the optimum load to an amplifier driving an electrostatic speaker. OK, that's the science part. That eliminates (I'm guessing) a good 80% of speaker cable choices (since the majority of them, regardless of price, have capacitance far in excess of 20pF/ft!) But of the candidates remaining, at least you know they'll all make your amp and speakers happy, you just have to decide which one(s) "sounds good to you." Just remember that the "sounds good to you" part should come at the end of the process, after you've done all the science you can. That's how great sounding systems are created!

Neil:

Even if you segregated the cables by those rated at < 20pf/ft and those with higher capacitance, you'd still want try to a cable(s) from both camps and see what works best in your system. You can never get around the subjective component of this hobby no matter how much research you do.

I would be willing to bet that even if you had a really good setup in a fully treated room and ran cable A (low capacitance) vs cable B (high(er) capacitance) for some double blind tests, the results would be very mixed. You could make the same argument between a 1k CD player and a 10K CD player, or a set of amps for $500 vs another pair running for $40,000. If there was an ironclad set of metrics, testing, etc - they would have found it by now.

You and Dan are really in violent agreement - you both want to arrive at the same endpoint, but have different ways of getting there. Dan likes to tinker - he likes swapping out cables every now and again based on reviews, good deals on the net, and it's also just plain fun to mess with new hardware from time to time. Dan DOES, in fact, have a terrific memory and he is able to go through a looooonnnng list of cables he's evaluated over the years.

Neil is obviously much more analytical and wants to use some sort of metric to govern his choices. I used to be the same way. But I have learned that it's far more important to find a happy medium between price and performance based on your own listening experience than to trust the science behind [of all things] cables!

 

[nsgarch]

You can never get around the subjective component of this hobby no matter how much research you do.

First of all, that statement of yours is extremely misleading. It implies that there's no point in understanding the science, asking questions of experts, and collecting the experiences of other users of the same equipment. It suggests you'd be just as close to making the right decision if you threw darts at Stereophile's Recommended Speaker Cables page! And while the 'cable thing' is certainly one of the more contentious areas of audio, my point was that there are ways of confidently coming up with a short list of candidates to audition, while not fretting that one you didn't include might be 'the one'! And in the case of selecting speaker cables for use with electrostats, that list can be greatly reduced by the application of science. (Just as an aside here: I tried Roger Sanders' ESL speaker cables, and found them extremely dry and rolled-off toward the lower midrange, so low capacitance alone is certainly no guarantee.) OTOH, understanding that the science is ironclad in this instance, why would one even consider using a high capacitance speaker cable to drive an electrostat (except in an emergency ;-)

As one accumulates more and more sonic experiences, and takes good notes (life is all about taking good notes, isn't it? ;-) certain principles will emerge that you can use later in selecting things to audition. Still, if I had to short-list cable choices for another altogether different system than mine, the first thing I'd do is make an effort to connect with others who were using the same speakers as I, and listen to their systems if I could. Next, I'd try to determine if there were any clearly superior combinations and what did the user try previously (don't tell me polls aren't scientific!) Then I'd try to see if there were any common physical aspects among the favorites. It certainly beats throwing darts at Stereophile (unless just for pleasure!)

 

[eknuds01]

I didn't mean that you couldn't draw upon the learnings or experiences of others or try to grasp the science of the various technologies to help pick out a pair of cables.

However no amount of analytical debate, scientific analysis and measurement is substitute for the human ear - that's what I meant to state. I won't buy a pair of cables because one merely has a lower capacitance vs another.

 

[twich54]

I won't buy a pair of cables because one merely has a lower capacitance vs another.

Nor would I Erik, but I do agree with Neil in the manner that our speakers have "known" unique characteristics with respect to capacitance, so taking that into account one has a basis upon where to start.

FWIW, while we all tend to preach...."let your ears decide", the truth is there are a fair number of supposed audiophiles that really don't know what 'good sound' really is !