What type of wires for speakers?

[[email protected]]

This post in in the same genre of cables (my last query was about HDMI
cables and thanks I got good convincing responses). This one is about
speaker cables.

I am connecting my Pioneer receiver to my focal surround sound
speakers. My retailer sold me $80 audioquest cables (apaparently they
are thicker and the wires don't intertwine i.e. they go through
straight). I was told I will hear the difference between cheaper
speaker wires and these. Is there a difference between using these
speaker wires or the cheaper 16 guage belkin speaker wires ($25) or
the monster speaker wires ($35)

Thanks
Andy

 

[Bob Myers]

This post in in the same genre of cables (my last query was about HDMI
cables and thanks I got good convincing responses). This one is about
speaker cables.

I am connecting my Pioneer receiver to my focal surround sound
speakers. My retailer sold me $80 audioquest cables (apaparently they
are thicker and the wires don't intertwine i.e. they go through
straight). I was told I will hear the difference between cheaper
speaker wires and these. Is there a difference between using these
speaker wires or the cheaper 16 guage belkin speaker wires ($25) or
the monster speaker wires ($35)

In a word: no.

Bob M.

 

[Eeyore]

This post in in the same genre of cables (my last query was about HDMI
cables and thanks I got good convincing responses). This one is about
speaker cables.

As a physical element Copper works well as a suitable conductor for your
speaker cables. Despite claims to contrary, God holds the patent, not
Monster cable or anyone else, nor does Magick Faerie Dust or liquid
nitrogen treatment make it behave any differently.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

My retailer sold me $80 audioquest cables (apaparently they
are thicker and the wires don't intertwine i.e. they go through
straight). I was told I will hear the difference between cheaper
speaker wires and these.

Bwahahahahhahahahaa !

Were you born gullible ?


Graham

 

[[email protected]]

...Is there a difference between...speaker wires

Yes, there is a difference. The question, as JF has said, is whether
or not it matters to your ears. If you could hear a sonic difference,
I think you could get a job as an equipment reviewer at one of those
high-end audio magazines evaluating "soundstages" and such. But let's
assume you have merely a mortal's ears. There is another factor in
play: fun. Yes, there's something satisfying about knowing that the
path between your amp and speakers has enough copper in it to start a
car. To get the maximum fun, you should think about building this
stuff, rather than plunking down big bux for high-end cables (unless
you're filthy rich and would rather spend the time disrobing pretty
females, etc.).

One thing you should know about is skin effect (no, nothing to do with
disrobing). As the sonic frequencies increase, the current is forced
closer to the outside of the conductor (the skin). If high enough, say
radio frequencies, all of the current is in the skin, so hollow pipes
will do fine and not waste copper. Or plate the skin with a better
conductor, like silver. Commercially, dividing the conductor up into
many insulated wires is an attempt to increase the skin area and
minimize the impedance.

Now for some more fun. Suppose you took 2-inch-diameter copper water
pipes and ran them parallel to each other as the speaker conductors?
Or whatever diameter will give you enough crosssectional area
equivalent to Monster cables. The skin area would be huge. And (here's
the fun part) if you polish them up like a mirror (and lacquer them to
stay that way), they would look like you have your own haydron
collider! Yes, I know water pipe is not "oxygen-free copper" (Wiki
it), but it would still look cool, and you could at least have the
satisfaction of knowing that even if it is not the best there is, you
are so close to it that you needn't strain yourself trying to hear the
difference. After all, just relaxing and enjoying the music should
probably rank up at the top of all this, shouldn't it? Or perhaps
just below the disrobing.

 

[z]

Yes, there is a difference. The question, as JF has said, is whether
or not it matters to your ears. If you could hear a sonic difference,
I think you could get a job as an equipment reviewer at one of those
high-end audio magazines evaluating "soundstages" and such. But let's
assume you have merely a mortal's ears. There is another factor in
play: fun. Yes, there's something satisfying about knowing that the
path between your amp and speakers has enough copper in it to start a
car. To get the maximum fun, you should think about building this
stuff, rather than plunking down big bux for high-end cables (unless
you're filthy rich and would rather spend the time disrobing pretty
females, etc.).

One thing you should know about is skin effect (no, nothing to do with
disrobing). As the sonic frequencies increase, the current is forced
closer to the outside of the conductor (the skin). If high enough, say
radio frequencies, all of the current is in the skin, so hollow pipes
will do fine and not waste copper. Or plate the skin with a better
conductor, like silver. Commercially, dividing the conductor up into
many insulated wires is an attempt to increase the skin area and
minimize the impedance.

Now for some more fun. Suppose you took 2-inch-diameter copper water
pipes and ran them parallel to each other as the speaker conductors?
Or whatever diameter will give you enough crosssectional area
equivalent to Monster cables. The skin area would be huge. And (here's
the fun part) if you polish them up like a mirror (and lacquer them to
stay that way), they would look like you have your own haydron
collider! Yes, I know water pipe is not "oxygen-free copper" (Wiki
it), but it would still look cool, and you could at least have the
satisfaction of knowing that even if it is not the best there is, you
are so close to it that you needn't strain yourself trying to hear the
difference. After all, just relaxing and enjoying the music should
probably rank up at the top of all this, shouldn't it?  Or perhaps
just below the disrobing.

i was using a bunch of left over Romex for speaker cables for years.
didn't notice any roll off of the highs, but then i'm an olding male
so have no hearing worth a damn anyway. but the advantage was that
with my little rogers ls3/5a minimonitors, the wires served as their
own speaker stand.

 

[z]

This post in in the same genre of cables (my last query was about HDMI
cables and thanks I got good convincing responses). This one is about
speaker cables.

I am connecting my Pioneer receiver to my focal surround sound
speakers. My retailer sold me $80 audioquest cables (apaparently they
are thicker and the wires don't intertwine i.e. they go through
straight). I was told I will hear the difference between cheaper
speaker wires and these. Is there a difference between using these
speaker wires or the cheaper 16 guage belkin speaker wires ($25) or
the monster speaker wires ($35)

Thanks
Andy

you want to have an optimal system; try soldering the speaker wire at
each end. most folks don't disassemble their stereo that often, and
even if the connections are good when new they often deteriorate with
age, no matter what the setup; phono plugs, screws, etc. anyway, my
point is that the difference between lamp cord of adequate wire size
and the best million dollar solid silver cable, if any, will be much
much less than the difference between a good connection, i.e.
soldered, and a connection that's starting to get oxidized and/or
loose.

also note that a lot of fancy component interconnects (i can't say re
speaker cables here) come with remarkably shoddy phono plugs which do
very much get loose and oxidized over time. given the manufacturing
cost of a real welol designed and functioning (for instance, designed
to connect ground before signal) phono plug vs the manufacturing cost
of a foot of even the best cable, i can see why they'd skimp on the
connectors if they want to drop the cost.

 

[z]

$80 is way to cheap for "good" speaker cable. Google for "Transparent Opus
MM Solid State" cables. An 8 foot pair is around $24,000 I believe.

If you still find no improvement your room needs to be tuned. Try..

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm

"Brilliant Pebbles significantly improves dynamic range and lowers
distortion of the audio system"

On second thoughts perhaps it's all just a scam.

don't know about brilliant pebbles; but definitely the biggest
variable in a good sound system today is the room, and its interaction
with the speakers. hard to imagine fixing it with a bunch of crystals;
sound absorbing and reflecting materials and moving the speakers
around are the way we used to do it in the old days when physics was
something you learned in school and not over the internet.

and we used to theorize that the wonderous effects reported heard with
all the mouse fur insulated speaker cables and internets and so on
were probably the result of nonlinearities which coincidentally and
fortuitously happened to improve the acoustics/interactions of the
reviewers listening room and speakers. because some of those huge
dollar golden ear items turn out to have astoundingly far from flat
lab measurements.

 

[terry]

This post in in the same genre of cables (my last query was about HDMI
cables and thanks I got good convincing responses). This one is about
speaker cables.

I am connecting my Pioneer receiver to my focal surround sound
speakers. My retailer sold me $80 audioquest cables (apparently they
are thicker and the wires don't intertwine i.e. they go through
straight). I was told I will hear the difference between cheaper
speaker wires and these. Is there a difference between using these
speaker wires or the cheaper 16 gauge Belkin speaker wires ($25) or
the monster speaker wires ($35)

Thanks
Andy

Andy I think you can tell from the replies that when it comes to
electricity including at audio and musical frequencies, a wire, is a
wire, is a wire.
As long as there is good wire connection between the outputs of the
amplifier and each speaker it doesn't matter what kind of wire is
used.
If you could keep the two wires to eac speaker separated not touching
together and with good connections at each end you could use barbed
wire!

One of the cheaper ways to buy wire, as someone has suggested, is to
buy a cheap extension cord. Even the cheapest made in China/Mexico/
Taiwan etc. will be at least 18 AWG copper.

That gauge of wire has a resistance of about 6.5 ohms per 1000 feet,
so even allowing that there are two wires to and from the speaker,
even if the distance is say twice 50 feet = 100 ft. (and most speakers
are not far away as far as wiring is concerned?) that is only 0.65
ohms introduced into a nominal 8 ohm circuit.

There is no need to use car booster gauge cables for normal domestic
listening. If one is deal with 2000 watt public announcement/rap-
festival that's another matter.

Even at a sound peak of 100 watts (watch your eardrums!) the loss in
18 AWG cabling will be 8% or less; not noticeable to the logarithmic
human ear which needs a doubling of power (3dB) to notice any
difference. And it will not be (at audio/music) frequency
sensitive.

No wonder there is the semi technical term 'Audiophoolishness'! Happy
listening.

 

[Jasen Betts]

There is no need to use car booster gauge cables for normal domestic
listening. If one is deal with 2000 watt public announcement/rap-
festival that's another matter.

2KW into 8 ohms is (almost) 16A @ (around) 126V
an 18AWG extension lead should handle it, just.

 

[Rich Webb]

Andy I think you can tell from the replies that when it comes to
electricity including at audio and musical frequencies, a wire, is a
wire, is a wire.
As long as there is good wire connection between the outputs of the
amplifier and each speaker it doesn't matter what kind of wire is
used.
If you could keep the two wires to eac speaker separated not touching
together and with good connections at each end you could use barbed
wire!

Actually, there's a rather interesting analysis at
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page1.html>

I haven't run the numbers myself -- too late on a Sunday evening to
have anything at all to do with Bessel functions -- but at a quick
look, it looks credible.

Shorter version: There is a fractional dB loss at higher audio
frequencies that could reasonably be expected to be accounted for in
analytic work but which is quite negligable for ordinary (and even
extraordinary) listening, so go ahead and use zip cord.

 

[Don Klipstein]

2KW into 8 ohms is (almost) 16A @ (around) 126V
an 18AWG extension lead should handle it, just.

I would put that into 12 AWG territory, although I give good chance at
getting away with that (audio duty) with 14 AWG and "fair chance" for
audio duty with 16 AWG.

Keep in mind RMS currents to be sustained for 15-30 seconds or so.
Please keep in mind worst case of misuse or abuse.

My experience in USA is that 12 AWG extension cords and 12 AWG "Romex"
have nobody saying that they are fire hazards at 20 amps RMS (determined
over time period of anywhere from 1/120 second to a few seconds).
And that 14 AWG extension cords and "Romex" are similarly good for 14
amps RMS.

Going along those lines, I am suspicious of 13 amp rating of 16 AWG
extension cords - with the above data, I consider "similarly conservative"
rating of 16 AWG extension cords to be about 11 amps, not the 13 amps
that many 16 AWG extension cords are "rated for".

Back to loudspeaker cable:

Check into impedance as a function of frequency when that is available.
Otherwise I advise to suspect that impedance as a function of frequency
can at "significant audio frequencies" (30 Hz to 16 KHz) be anywhere from
71% of rated to 4 times rated.
If the cable resistance and amplifier output impedance add up to low
enough to have gain from amplifier input to loudspeaker terminal constant
within a .5 dB range from 35 Hz (or loudspeaker -3 dB bass response point,
whichever is higher) on up to 15 KHz, then I suspect that there is not
much room for improvement other than use of a better loudspeaker.
And I am highly satisfied that a loudspeaker achieving +/- 3 dB from
36 Hz to 16 KHz (without smoothing such as requirement of significant
bandwidth of "narrowband noise" signal or fast sweep rate of a swept
sinewave signal) is especially good! Heck, a loudspeaker is good when
achieving +/- 4 dB over that frequency range when specifying source
impedance!
"Damping factor" of an amplifier is ratio of specified load impedance to
output source impedance of the apmlifier. That needs to get down to about
16 or so or less to change "frequency response" of a loudspeaker by 1 dB
or so!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Eeyore]

If one is deal with 2000 watt public announcement/rap-
festival that's another matter.

We only use 4mm2 cable for that anyway. Not sure what that would be in your
funny unique to the USA AWG numbers.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

2KW into 8 ohms is (almost) 16A @ (around) 126V
an 18AWG extension lead should handle it, just.

Do you expect the rest of the world to have a clue what an 'AWG' is ?

The rest of the world (outside the USA) measures wire by cross-sectional
area in mm2.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I would put that into 12 AWG territory

Can we use metric units please ?

This AWG stuff is irrelevant to 95% of the world.

Graham

 

[Don Klipstein]

We only use 4mm2 cable for that anyway. Not sure what that would be in your
funny unique to the USA AWG numbers.

4 square mm is approx. 11 AWG

18 AWG is close enough to 1 mm in diameter. Increase of 3 is close
enough to halving cross section area - think like decibels, except bigger
number is smaller wire. This works well enough from 2 to 46 or something
like that.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[terry]

  4 square mm is approx. 11 AWG

  18 AWG is close enough to 1 mm in diameter.  Increase of 3 is close
enough to halving cross section area - think like decibels, except bigger
number is smaller wire.  This works well enough from 2 to 46 or something
like that.

 - Don Klipstein ([email protected])

My rather old tables give the following.
18 AWG = 0.8232 sq.mm
16 AWG = 1.309
14 AWG = 2.081
12 AWG = 3.309
10 AWG = 5.261
9 AWG which I've never seen = 6.632 sq.mm
8 AWG = 8.368
7 AWG which AFIK have also never seen = 10.55 sq.mm
6 AWG = 13.30
These except as indicated are all the readily available sizes, today,
at hardware and building supply stores throughout North America.
Noticeable that none of these are an exact number of sq.mm.!
The 4sq.mm cable beloved by UK style installations typically for their
ring mains with switched outlets and 13 amp fused plugs looks to be
'sort' the equivalent of 11 AWG.
Domestically AFIK in North American practice we use a greater number
of 'radial' (individual circuits) not ring mains.
Interestingly sheet boards and lumber which metrically have rather
unwieldy measurements such as 1200 by 2400 mm. (4' x 8') or 100 by 50
mm. (A two by four) are still referred to the non metric way. e,g. "A
bundle of pre cut two by four studs". Or "A half dozen sheets of four
by eight, half inch plywood".

 

[Jasen Betts]

Interestingly sheet boards and lumber which metrically have rather
unwieldy measurements such as 1200 by 2400 mm. (4' x 8') or

actual sheet size is 1220*2440 mm here, (2440mm is 0.8mm larger than 8')

100 by 50 mm. (A two by four) are still referred to the non metric way.

here it's called 100x50 if rough sawn or 90x45 if dressed (smooth
finish)


Bye.
Jasen

 

[Sjouke Burry]

If you want to know the size of a wire, why not use the
size, instead of a silly translation table called awg???

 

[Eeyore]

Who needs a table when it comes specified by diameter or CSA ? The calculations
need no table.

Besides, over here it was once SWG (standard wire gauge) not AWG.

Graham