Good, Neutral, Reasonably Priced Cables?

Psychic: One of my colleagues has some radical ideas about power cords and AC filtration. He has made claims to me about what he can do in this area and i'm trying to work with him on this. He's not been real specific with me as he likes toying with me i.e. trying to get me to think about things on a different level. Only problem is, we have very different schedules and right now, our priorities are very much in other places. I'm quite eager to see what he has come up with though as he's the smartest guy that i personally know in terms of electronics and design theory. The fact that he has more test equipment than Toys R Us has toys surely doesn't hurt either.

Rooze: If unsure, i always recommend the use of the Zobel's with Goertz cables. Before making specific recommendations to you though, i called up Krell and spoke to Roger. He wasn't familiar with Goertz and had to ask the engineers there several technical questions to get answers for me. We ended up coming down to the same conclusion. That is, this specific amp should probably be used with the Zobel's "just in case".

As a side note, Goertz cables aren't like most other speaker cables in certain respects. That is, bigger isn't always better. You have to look at the output impedance of the amp, the speaker load that you'll be driving, etc... It's my experience that MI-2 Veracity cables may be superior to MI-3 Divinity cables in most installations. This is due to the electrical characteristics of most amplifiers and speakers involved.

Like i said above, you want to match the cables electrical characteristics to the devices that it is linking together. I know that "male syndrome" i.e. "bigger is better" / "more is not enough", etc... is a hard thing to overcome, but when it comes to things like this, you really can overdue it. Going to their heavier gauge cables can create an impedance mismatch, which would actually lower the performance capacity of the ciruit. Granted, this may not be as severe as going to other cables that create a more drastic impedance related issue, but at the same time, we're shooting for optimum results here.

The obvious thing that most people think of when looking at "bigger" speaker cables would be the heavier gauge with its increased surface area, power handling and lower series resistance. As such, i can see why one would normally want to shoot for the "top of the line" cable, but that doesn't mean that such a cable would always be the best suited electrically or economically to the situation at hand. This is especially the case when dealing with a manufacturer that actually has some design integrity built into the various products that they offer at various price points.

Having said that, i called up and spoke to the folks at Goertz about your specific installation. Their first recommendation was exactly what you ordered i.e. the MI-3 Divinities in bi-wire form. The other alternative would be to use two individual pairs of MI-2 Veracity cables, one cable for the low's and the other for the highs. This would give you the same cross section area as the MI-3's while maintaining ( what i think ) is the most appropriate impedance.

Here's another point about Goertz that i like. It just so happens that this subject is being discussed in another thread pertaining to cable models and the price structure of various manufacturers. That is, the MI-3 is equivalent to two pairs of MI-2's in terms of surface area & materials used. As such, the MI-3 bi-wires are exactly the same cost as two pairs of MI-2's. Makes sense, huh???

On top of that, there is a linear progression of their cables in terms of how / why they are designed as they are. That is, as one progresses from one model to the next to the next, you can see the exact steps taken in terms of gauge / series resistance / surface area / nominal impedance. Their MI-1's start out at 13 gauge, the MI-2's are 10 gauge and the MI-3's are 7 gauge. In effect, as you step up in their cable line, you double your surface area and power handling and at the same time, reduce the nominal impedance to pass more current. How many other manufacturers are as fair with their pricing and / or logical with their design philosophy / product line? None that i know of.

My suggestion is to try the MI-3's and see what you think. If you aren't over-joyed with them, send them back and pick up a quad of MI-2's. It's the same cost and you'll only be out the cost of shipping. This will let you know for sure whether or not you like this cable within the confines of your system and you can always return them if not satisfied. Sean
>

PS... If i were buying these cables, i would be ordering them with their silver spades. I don't really care for their rhodium spades and their banana connectors are terrible. As a side note, they use "real" silver, so the connections will tarnish over time. While you should clean them periodically ( all connections should be removed and cleaned periodically ), this one is not exactly a big deal. Silver oxide, the corrosion that forms on the surface of silver, is actually more conductive than copper is when it is still "fresh". That doesn't mean that you should let them go to the point of turning black, but at the same time, if you forget about this over a period of time, it's nothing to worry about.

"In other words, does 'minimizing skin effect' actually mean 'maximizing skin propagation'?

Tommy: That's a GREAT summary. Only thing to remember is, you've got to have enough "skin" or "surface area" to keep the series resistance low. On top of that, the geometry of each "skin" used, the spacing between the skins and the dielectric used also dictates the nominal impedance and how lossy the cable is, so all of that is important too. Like i said over in the AA thread, it's the only design that takes ALL of these factors into consideration in an even fashion. Many designs try to stress specific attributes of proper electrical design, but they neglect other aspects of signal propagation, resulting in a cable that has various strengths and weaknesses. This is the only product that attempts to do all of them in an even-handed fashion, resulting in the most cohesive package possible. That's why the test results at Audioholics showed what they did. Even the "generic", "copy-cat" or "cloned" versions of Goertz ( like Electro-Fluidics ) don't get everything right. Sean
>

Now is the time for Robert Schult to step in...

Clear your head of that caffeine/nicotine overdose and show them what *you* have, Robert. Since my two week fasting my mind is very clear and I've been giving psychic healing prescriptions. I have one for you, too!

Bupleurum Liver Cleanser by Planetary Formulas--follow the label instructions. This is a five day modified fast: distilled water with lemon juice, watermelon (in season!) and chamomille tea before bedtime. No cigarrettes, no coffee. Sleep with a small white quartz on a necklace and recite these words before going to bed:

Porque yo...soy la fama
Soy aquél que la gente reclama
Y nadie me puede comprender.

It will get worse before it gets better. Call me if you need help.

***

Tommy: One more thing about the Magnan's that you linked to. That is, they appear to use the flat ribbon design but then make additional connections to a different type of conductor for termination at each end of the cable. This means for a standard pair of speaker cables, you've now got a connection from the binding post to the spade, from the spade to the "round" wire, from the round wire to the foil, from the foil to the round wire, from the round wire to the spade and from the spade to the amp. Now you've got the same thing for the other polarity. Compare those 24 ( !!! ) connections per stereo pair of speaker cables and the overall design of the cable to Goertz and see what you get.

First of all, the Goertz connects the ribbon to the spade directly. Secondly, the lack of connections maintains a more pure path / consistent path for the signal to be carried upon. Thirdly, there's only one type of conductor used per polarity, so there's no reduction of the benefits that we worked so hard to achieve in terms of trying to minimize skin effect. As far as the total connection count for a pair of Goertz flat cables, you've got the connection from the binding post to the spade, the spade to the ribbon, the ribbon to the spade and the spade to the amp's binding post. This is 16 connections per stereo pair. This results in a 33% reduction in connections as compared to the Magnan's, let alone retaining a higher level of signal integrity / signal path.

To be fair though, some folks consider ANY connection as being one too many. As such, they try to reduce the number of connections to as few as possible. As such, it would be possible to use bare Goertz ( that was stripped of its' insulation" and tie it directly to each binding post. This would result in two connections per polarity, for a total of 8 connections per stereo pair. This would result in a 50% reduction of connections compared to using spades with the Goertz or a 66% reduction compared to the Magnan's. I say this because i really don't think that you could safely use the Magnan's by directly connecting their very thin and fragile ribbon directly to the binding posts without tearing them apart / ripping the foil.

Like i said before, there's a lot of good ideas, but some ideas are implimented better / in a more practical manner than others. Sean
>

Rooze: To make things easier on you, here's a link to a thread where i made my most recent mention of Magnan interconnects. It can be found in a thread entitled IC Advice Needed.

Psychic: Send him on over, along with all of the other manufacturers that want to join in. Since they didn't want to try and refute the facts over at AA when i first detailed all of this, they can come for a "swim" now. The water feels fine and there's actually some technical specifications provided by a third party that we can use for reference material. We can see just how much snake oil / misinformation one can fit into a thread and at the same time, see who can lie through their teeth without smiling or giving themselves away. Somehow, i get the feeling that there are VERY few cable manufacturers that would be afraid to enter even the shallow end of this "pool". If they do, they better bring their "inflatable water wings" like young ones use before they really swim. You might also want to let them know that this "pool" has sharks in it : ) Sean
>

PS... How does one deal with the oxidation of a conductor when using a natural "non-sealed" type of dielectric? After all, oxygen is allowed to flow through a cloth fiber, which in turn oxidizes the conductor. Oxidation causes corrosion and pitting of the surface, resulting in increased skin effect, impedance bumps, irregular signal paths and higher resistance. Since this will take place over the entire length of the conductor due to a lack of dielectric protection, you've now got an entire length of potential signal variations.

The way to get around this is to use both the highest grade of dielectric that acts as a protective barrier AND the least amount of it. Yes, there may be a minute amount of signal degradation that takes place due to miniscule amounts of DA ( Dielectric Absorption ), but at least you've got a consistent conductor that is good for long term use that doesn't require constant maintenance due to corrosion.

For sake of comparison to other designs, the Goertz flat conductors have a very fine layer of dielectric plated directly onto the conductor and then another very thin film-like jacket over that to hold the two conductors together. The latest versions make use of Teflon, which is a material that has the lowest DA of any material known to man. Audioholics tested the older version, so the results may be even better with the current Goertz speaker cables due to the use of higher grade dielectric materials.