Long interconnects or long speaker wires?

[Relentless]

Well it's amp time for me finally. I have my eye on a pre-driven Boulder 2060 or a pair of Krell 750MCX mono's. Neither will fit on the rack so my choices are to place them next to the rack or the mains. So on to my question.....will I be better off with 6' interconnects and 18' of speaker wire or the other way around?



Thanks,

[Glenee]

Relentless, My choice has always been to run the shorter speakerwire and longer interconnects. Not only is it cheaper to run longer interconnects when using quality speaker wire, if the interconnect happen to be XLR this seems to be a no brainer when it comes to looks and sound. When running longer interconnects you have a better chance now, or later to put the amps on a designate circuit.

[Karma]

HI,
I'm now speaking about my main music system which is based upon ARC tube electronics and Martin Logan CLS IIA electrostatics. This is my best system.

My choice is the opposite. I use long speaker wires and (relatively) short interconnects. My system does not have balanced input/output capability so that pretty much rules out using long balanced cables. Also, my preamp does not support a remote. I want my preamp and all other controls at my fingertips. These factors are the very practical considerations that led me to my current (for over 20 years!) configuration.

BTW, Glenee, my ARC D-250 power amp (250W/chan) is on a dedicated power line. I don't understand your comment. Could you explain? Also, very high quality interconnects rival the cost of speaker cables of the same quality level. I'm not at all sure that cost differences can be used as a justification for either approach.

I have always felt the low level, relatively high impedance low voltage line out signals were the most fragile. Thus, I feel the low level signals deserve the most gentle treatment which is acheived by the short length interconnects.

In more modern systems we have preamps or processors with remote controls. This allows all of the electronics to be grouped and moved close to the speakers at least in a 2 channel situation. This is ideal. Everything is short which should be the goal. In this case, since they are not needed, I WOULD NOT use the balanced connections. There is too much potential for signal contamination from less than perfectly designed balanced amplifiers. And, unless you spend really big bucks (you know: Levinson, Classe, Krell, etc.), you can count on them being less than perfect. Best to go single ended if your cable lenth permits it.

Sparky

[Lex]

Actually, since little power is moved through a low level signal of interconnects, going to long could have a loss of signal strength, and of course, higher resistence and higher capacitance. High capacitance is the enemy of interconnects, we want it LOW. Thus, well constructed shorter cables are best.

I believe your system will sound best with my CAT Cables Kingcat interconnects in shorter lengths, and Cattails speaker cables. The construction of the cattails is not so essoteric that it will cost you 5K for a set, but they are a heavy duty, well constructed cable. Personally, I would recommend not going bi-wire and splitting the signal, as further loss in signal is not really desirable, maximize signal strength over the long haul.

[sikoniko]

I find it interesting to see the different opinions. When I designed my room, the research I found concluded was that around 8ft is the longest you want a speaker cable, and if you had to do long interconnects, you really NEED to do balanced connections. I apologize that I dont have links to substantiate this. Ideally, I believe 6ft is the magic number for both interconnects and speaker cable, and everything else has compromises.

I build an in-wall rack in the back of my room. My system is dual use HT and 2 channel. I decided that I was not concerned with the quality of sound for my surround speakers, so I found it acceptable to make long speaker cable runs and put the amp next to the proc. Because I wanted the best of 2 channel and HT, I decided I needed to run balanced to the front of the room and place the speakers by the amp. I ended up running 3 balanced cables to create as seemless of soundstage as I could when listening to HT, and I opted for the CA-3200 to power the front 3 speakers.

I believe this solution has the fewest compromises. BUT what it does do is make decisions more expensive and thought out. Now, I will always have to have a proc solution that accomodates balanced connections for my front soundstage, which are generally more expensive.

So, I suggest you think the all of the scenarios through, and identify what you are willing to compromise on. IMO, balanced is better than SE. You will be less susceptible to noise bleed from other cables. there is a -6db difference from SE though. Because of this, if you are doing HT as well, you will eventually want to consider a complete balanced system. IMO, some of my issues are related to mixing balanced and SE, which I hope to resolve later this year with a new amp for my surrounds that support balanced connections.

[RobP]

I would say to use shorter interconnects, especially if you are using single ended interconnects, you can run balanced runs longer, but somewhere there has to be a happy medium in a home setup due to placement issues, long runs of speaker wire of wire will affect the signal, but in the relatively short runs used in a home, will you really be able to notice it? Below is a example of typical signal loss for wire lengths vs gauge, it is based on a 100 ft run.

10 AWG: 4 Ohm = .44 dB, 8 Ohm = .22 dB, 16 Ohm = .11 dB
12 AWG: 4 Ohm = .69 dB, 8 Ohm = .35 dB, 16 Ohm = .18 dB
14 AWG: 4 Ohm = 1.07 dB, 8 Ohm = .55 dB, 16 Ohm = .28 dB
16 AWG: 4 Ohm = 1.65 dB, 8 Ohm = .86 dB, 16 Ohm = .44 dB
18 AWG: 4 Ohm = 2.49 dB, 8 Ohm = 1.33 dB, 16 Ohm = .69 dB

[Glenee]

HI,
I'm now speaking about my main music system which is based upon ARC tube electronics and Martin Logan CLS IIA electrostatics. This is my best system.

My choice is the opposite. I use long speaker wires and (relatively) short interconnects. My system does not have balanced input/output capability so that pretty much rules out using long balanced cables. Also, my preamp does not support a remote. I want my preamp and all other controls at my fingertips. These factors are the very practical considerations that led me to my current (for over 20 years!) configuration.

BTW, Glenee, my ARC D-250 power amp (250W/chan) is on a dedicated power line. I don't understand your comment. Could you explain? Also, very high quality interconnects rival the cost of speaker cables of the same quality level. I'm not at all sure that cost differences can be used as a justification for either approach.

I have always felt the low level, relatively high impedance low voltage line out signals were the most fragile. Thus, I feel the low level signals deserve the most gentle treatment which is acheived by the short length interconnects.

In more modern systems we have preamps or processors with remote controls. This allows all of the electronics to be grouped and moved close to the speakers at least in a 2 channel situation. This is ideal. Everything is short which should be the goal. In this case, since they are not needed, I WOULD NOT use the balanced connections. There is too much potential for signal contamination from less than perfectly designed balanced amplifiers. And, unless you spend really big bucks (you know: Levinson, Classe, Krell, etc.), you can count on them being less than perfect. Best to go single ended if your cable lenth permits it.

Sparky

Well so much for my opinon. :rofl: :rofl: ;x( Sparky the reason I was talking about the designated line, is if anyone should decide to Mono Amp. When they split their speakers apart a lot of times they will set one of the mono's close to a speaker away from the main system and a lot of time there is a outlet close. That's all. And by the way in my limited post I agree if they are not XLR then shorter RCA Interconnect would be the ticket.
Sorry Guys hope I'm still Welcome.
OLE Glenee

[Karma]

Actually, since little power is moved through a low level signal of interconnects, going to long could have a loss of signal strength, and of course, higher resistence and higher capacitance. High capacitance is the enemy of interconnects, we want it LOW. Thus, well constructed shorter cables are best.

HI Lex,
Low capacitance seems to be desirable only in the eye of the beholder. I agree with you but other, major, cable manufacturers don't. For example, MIT uses high capacitance to "voice" their cables and they certainly have a distinctive sound. A sound I don't like at all.

When I designed my interconnect cables I had low capacitance as number one on my design priorities list. To see how my cables compared to other commercial "designer" cables I kept a set of my cables in my car (so I could swap them into a variety of systems) along with a capacitance bridge. I was very curious to measure the capacitance of the cables my fellow audiophiles used in their systems. I wanted to see if I could correlate capacitance to the sound.

After measuring perhaps 25 different "quality" cable brands and models I found the lowest were the Kimber KCTG silver/Teflon 1 meter interconnects at 21 pF/foot. The highest were MIT's at over 75 pf/foot. Mine measured 17 pf/foot. I felt I had accomplished my design goal.

I have found, and apparently you agree, that low capacitance is a major factor in a cables ability to reproduce fine detail. MIT's are just terrible with detail. Of course, as you know, there are other factors in the design of a good cable such as geometry, materials, and physical ruggedness but low capcitance is very important, IMO.

BTW, unlike speaker cables, I do not consider resistance in interconnects to be overly important as long as it is within reason. Because the current flow is so low, IR losses are insignificant. However, resistance should not be allowed to rise too high or the resulting R/C time constant will limit bandwidth and create frequency dependant phase shifts-not good. It's a trade-off especially with respect to cable length.

I have not had a chance to hear your CAT cables but I would be willing to bet I would like them very much.

Sparky

[RebelMan]

The choice will depend on speaker crossover construction and system electronics. If you are forced to make a choice between cables determine which, your speakers or your equipment, are most sensitive to the choices. B&W does not recommend speaker cables that will exceed .1ohm of impedance, this means most cables that exceed 8 feet in length can have a negative affect.

On the other hand, if high output impedance of the pre-amplifier is combined with low input impedance of the amplifier then this will also have adverse effects. Balanced interconnects can ameliorate this to some degree as they cut the capacitance by nearly half of comparable single ended cables in addition to providing better protection against signal interface.

Many if not most people chose longer speaker runs over interconnects. The choice is driven primarily by costs, not performance, as interconnects can be significantly more expensive for a given length and gauge. If you can manage the extra expense you'll generally benefit more from longer (balanced) interconnects than speaker cables of equivalent length.

High capacitance is detrimental to audio signals because it can have the affect of filtering the high frequencies which will manifest itself as a softening of treble and a loss of inner details.

[Relentless]

I was hoping it would of been better with long balanced interconnects than the speaker wire because I like the amp by the mains look. I am going to sacrifice looks for the best sound possible though. After the amps my next move is to have some dedicated lines for the amps and the rest of the system so I have to get this right.

............as always I really appreciate all of your input :T

[RebelMan]

I am planning to run long balanced interconnects to the L&R mains for a garage conversion I am working on but long construction grade speaker wire for the surrounds. My decision was based on the combination of B&W and Classe' specifications. Your's specifications maybe different with different equipment.

[Glenee]

I was hoping it would of been better with long balanced interconnects than the speaker wire because I like the amp by the mains look. I am going to sacrifice looks for the best sound possible though. After the amps my next move is to have some dedicated lines for the amps and the rest of the system so I have to get this right.

............as always I really appreciate all of your input :T

Relentless, If your running XLR connectors. I know of No manufacture that has Balanced XLR out Pre to Balanced in Amps that does not recommend using the long run of Interconnects and the short speaker wire closer to the Mono Amp-Speaker connection . I am including MacIntosh, Classe, Rotel etc. If they don't recommend it, it's cause they don't make it.. Call any of them or go to one of their forums see if I am not right on this, More headroom, better amp speaker control, etc. Run Em like you were going to, I experimented long and hard with this. RCA, XLR interconnects, Short versus long speaker wire. The best Hook -up for most Monoblock Amp Installations are Long XLR balanced interconnects with short speaker wire. In many hour of trial and error, to me and most manufactures this is primo. :T

[dknightd]

In my limited experience it makes no difference. So go with what what you prefer or fits . I've tried 20' speaker cables, and 20' interconnects - at these lengths I could not tell the difference between how things were connected.

I am curious how Karma makes his low capacitance interconnects.

[Glenee]

Sparky, I would be interested in what your using in that Top Secret interconnect. Please complete Inventory list and instructions.
Glenee

[Lex]

First of all, I seriously doubt one person has this all told knowledge that betters one of the best people in the cable business, Ray Kimber by 4 points lower capacitance. If so, then he should be in the business and put Ray out of business. Fat chance.

Club B & W was never intented to be a "single use forum", this means cable chatter, and electronics chatter all can be deleted by me or staff at a whim. We allow things to go so far, and then it's time for brakes. Creating this array of interest in Mr. Karma's cables, I expect was by intent, that he's either interested in selling or is already selling these cables which now according to him are better than Ray Kimber and everyone else's cables. As you know this is a cable sponsored forum, and when things get to a certain point, I put the brakes on it, regardless of cursory hat tipping to me that I'm recognized as forum cable guy. Mr. Karma had almost 800 posts, and that I recall, I've not deleted many if any up to this point. So, being challenged by him as being a "dictator" is highly over-reacting, and cutting his own nose off to spite his face was way overkill of a response. Even though he stooped to name calling because I deleted his last post here, I would still restore his membership with an apology. I am not a grudgeful guy. I just ask that my territory be respected, as well as my decisions.

To conclude, this thread did NOT belong in Club B & W, as it had NOTHING TO DO specifically with B&W. Let's evaluate where it got us. One member quit, and my blood pressure up. It's no win.

Members, please follow the guidelines, cable talk does not go in Club BW.