Cables – Speaker as well as interconnects – ugghh

I just went thru the same thing. I moved my amps to the side of the room, where before they had been between the speakers. I needed much longer cables, so I went with Signal Cables Ultra - a 22 ft one and a 14 ft one so that I wouldn't end up with a bunch of excess cable piled up on the floor for my right speaker.

You might want to consider the asymmetric length option, even if it means that if you resell, you'll probably have to sell them as singles.

Al,

Does "benign impedence" mean no measurable capacitance?

Best Regards,

Lynne

Hi Lynne,

No, as far as I am aware all speakers will exhibit measurable capacitance at some frequencies. Speaker impedance becomes more benign to the extent that:

1)Nominal impedance is higher.
2)The impedance varies less as a function of frequency.
3)The impedance is more purely resistive, as opposed to capacitive or inductive (especially capacitive).
4)Frequencies at which the impedance is particularly capacitive do not coincide with frequencies where impedance magnitude is low.

All of these differences will affect the degree of difficulty that the speaker load presents to the amplifier. They can also be expected to affect sensitivity to cable differences, because they will affect the amount of current flowing through the cable; and because the significance of cable resistance will vary depending on how great a fraction of speaker impedance it is (at all frequencies); and because the significance of cable inductance will vary depending on how great a fraction of speaker impedance it is (at high frequencies).

Figure 1 of this Stereophile review shows the impedance curves of the Focal 1037be, which I suspect are generally similar to those of Bryon's 1027be.

The solid line, which is read against the scale at the left of the graph, shows impedance magnitude. As you can see, it fluctuates widely, and is much lower in the bass and lower mid-range than at higher frequencies.

The dotted line, which is read against the scale at the right, shows the "phase angle" of the impedance. A phase angle of 0 would mean that the impedance is purely resistive; positive phase angles represent an impedance that is partially inductive and partially resistive (with +90 degrees representing pure inductance); negative phase angles represent an impedance that is partially capacitive and partially resistive (with -90 degrees representing pure capacitance).

Phase angles in the area of -40 or -50 degrees or more, in combination with low impedance magnitude, are particularly a cause for concern. As John Atkinson notes in the text above the figure, that occurs with this speaker in the vicinity of 30Hz.

Best regards,
-- Al

“The Sandringham's have an 8 ohm nominal impedance, and also apparently have a benign impedance vs. frequency curve. That will reduce their sensitivity to cable differences”

This is big, Al and I’m trying to digest it. So, if I understand correctly, the Sandringhams are rather stable animals that are less prone to exploit the shortcomings of various cables – is that right? And if this is right, would it then follow that the shortcomings of lesser cost cables are not as noticeable?

Am I on the right track? Some great suggestions have been put forth in this forum on lesser cost cables – I’m usually of the mindset that if I’m not spending a lot, I’m not getting much. However, maybe I can get by with less here…

PLEASE correct me if I’m way out in left field and thank you!

Rbschauman, yes, your interpretation of my comments is essentially correct. IMO many cable-related comments that you may see are flawed in three ways:

1)They fail to take into account that cable effects are significantly dependent, and perhaps mostly dependent, on the impedance and other characteristics of what is being connected.

2)They assume a high degree of correlation between performance and price.

3)They often assume that the ability of a system to resolve musical detail goes hand in hand with the ability to resolve differences between cables, and they therefore assume that if a system cannot resolve differences between cables, its musical resolution is deficient. That is incorrect, IMO, because (as implied in no. 1 above) many technical factors can be cited that will increase the sensitivity of a system to cable differences, but that have nothing to do with the ability to provide better sonics.

You may find my comments here to be of interest, as well as the comments by others in the same thread, some of whom, such as Tvad, have considerably more practical experience than I do in this area.

IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, etc. :-)

Regards,
-- Al