# The importance of quality internal speaker hook-up wire.



## Mike Cason

I decided to start this thread because I've hardly seen much debate on this topic. I had to Google "hook up wire" to find posts about hook up wiring! Many of the posters that I did find talked about their scrap wire they used for their speakers, and so very few knew about good hook up wiring. Because this is such an important part of speaker building, I'm surprised I haven't read more posts about it. I have heard high end speaker salesmen talk about its use in their speakers when I visit their showrooms, but considered it as a sales pitch. DIY is always a learning curve!

I have recently become friends of the owner of the Audience, the AuriCap Capacitor Company. They sell more products than the AuriCaps. 

A builder I'm wiring a house for said he had a friend who sells the capacitor "thingies" and he would introduce me to him if I was interested. His friend would be John McDonald, the owner of Audience.

We spent 3 to 4 hours visiting via emails about his company and their various current projects and told me the importance of using a high quality polished copper hook up wire for my crossovers to the terminal cup and also wired to the drivers. Each strand of copper wire in the Auric wire is high quality polished copper and the insulation is some high tech product so it doesn't melt from the soldering and protects the wire from corroding and deteriorating. You can learn more from visiting their site at http://www.audience-av.com/.

I have used scrap wire from my wire bin to hook up my speakers. Mr. McDonald sent me some free #18 and #21 gauge Auric wire to rewire my center speaker. I have posted a link to their company on my website and will post my results as well. It is the same wire they use when they build their speakers and it is also the same lead in wire that actually sticks out of the AuriCap capacitors for the crossover board connection.

I've always been under the impression that when we hit our speakers with a #10 thru #14 wire from our amps and receivers, that we should maintain that wire size or a little smaller on the inside of the speaker cabinet to the crossovers and from the crossovers to the drivers. Wrong~~~~~

I was concerned that because I drive my speakers fairly hard, and may step up to a 200 watt amplifier, I would be cautious about using such a small wire.

Here is a cut and paste reply from an email I received from his audio engineer at Audience, Mr. Roger Sheker regarding this issue:

"Mike,

We are using 400 watt amps with the 21 AWG wire in our setup but have very efficient speakers so it is no problem for us. We found the lighter wire to sound significantly better in our setup. I would envision a problem only if you were using 82-84db efficient speakers in a very large room and playing very loud party music. Replacing the 12AWG with the 21AWG is a very major reduction in mass and should help the sonics a lot. The only real test is to try it and check to see if the wire gets warm. I would be very surprised if it did. However if it does it will rapidly deteriorate and the good sound will vanish with no harm done. Twist all the wire pairs together a few turns per foot to reduce the inductance and get the best possible sound." 

I beleive I've seen this twisting method in some vintage Bozak speakers that Mr. Macintosh helped Mr. Bozak design. I thought the twisting was to keep the wires together, not inductance reduction. 

I accidently crushed the dome of my Morel midrange in my center speaker and am expecting delivery of a new one any day. This past weekend I removed all of my old wiring from the center speaker and installed the Auric wire according to their specs and when Mr. McDonald saw the photo, he said I did a great job and I was in for a very big surprise in performance when my new driver came in. 

I should have the new MDM55 midrange installed by Wednesday and will post the results. I used the #21 gauge for the tweeter and for the Davis midwoofers. I used the #18 gauge for the Morel because it is 89.5 dB efficient; and then used #18 gauge for the final hook up to the terminal cup.

Stay away from lead solder and try to use solder with silver in it or at least a 63/37 rosin core electronics solder for your work.

Here is a close quarters pic of the wiring before I attached the baffel. I can mount the mid in from the front without disassembly as the center speaker is back in the house and in my HT setup. I'll post an update when it is finished and tested. 

If the wire performs like it is supposed to, I'll be rewiring my mains soon! The wire is not very expensive compared to what you might have in a good DIY speaker project. ($1.35 to $2.00 per ft, depending who you purchase it from).

Please feel free to post any comments about your experiences with the various hook up wires like the Auric.


----------



## Anthony

Good post. Thanks for sharing.

I don't get how the "reduction in mass" affects things, but I agree that if you are using the proper wire gauge (i.e. not heating up), stick with the smallest you can justify. There's inadequate, over designed, and over the top. You want to be at "over-designed" 


And yes, the twisting does reduce inductance, more importantly, induced current from those wires leaking to another set.


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

Anthony said:


> And yes, the twisting does reduce inductance, more importantly, induced current from those wires leaking to another set.


I don't care for twisted wires in speakers. The problems addressed by twisted wires as interconnects don't exist in speakers, while the twisting does result in higher capacitance and resistance for a given lineal run. As for gauging, large wires are no more beneficial inside the box than they are outside. The same applies to exotic/expensive conductors or insulation.


----------



## Anthony

The only thing I've ever worried about from an inductance standpoint is putting the bass signal onto the tweeter after the crossover. I wouldn't worry about it hurting the tweeter (it would have to be a BIG bass signal to induce that much on the tweeter line), but tweeters are so sensitive that some distortion might creep through. Of course, just separating the wires carefully accomplishes more -- and you're right, it's nowhere near as bad as signal wires.

I usually only do a loose twist to keep the wire pair together. I stick with 14 to 16 gauge for the woofer, and don't go smaller than 18 guage for everything else. Mostly I just use whatever speaker wire I have extra spools of.

I stay away from esoteric stuff, although I usually try to get a high strand count (mostly because they are more flexible).


----------



## Mike Cason

Well; reporting time......:clap:

After installing the new Morel MDM 55 and firing up the system, the center speaker sounded very good with the Auric wire.

The problem I have in providing the group with an answer as to whether or not it improved the sound and clarity; that's a tough call. It sounded so good before I installed the Auric wire.

I just used some XM channels off of Direct TV and didn't use any CDs or DVD material because I had another project waiting on me. (I have more clean-up from Hurricane Ike).

I can't justify building another computer and setting it up in the house for speaker testing which would give me some more definitive results before and after making modifications to my speakers, but the speaker does perform extremely well. After I have had the opportunity to watch some good movies with decent soundtracks or music DVDs or SACDs, I may be able to have a more positive answer. If I were in the business of building speakers for a living, I would have all the tools I would need.

I do see eye to eye with Bill Fitzmaurice that the large gauge wire inside the box is probably unnecessary. As far as the exotic insulation, I have a 1000 foot roll of #12 gauge stranded oxygen free speaker wire made by Belkin. If it would have had a better or more exotic insulation on the wiring, it wouldn't have reacted with the copper and turned a slighter shade of light green. The wire is ok, but needs cleaning before terminating after stripping off the insulation.

Because this is a topic not found much in the forums, I find it a challenge to do some more investigating and getting with the engineer with Audience about the wire and insulation to see if they have some testing reports, charts, or details. I'm also going to try to find the high end speaker companies who only use this type of wire in their designs, whether it is for a sales pitch, or if they can provide information why it is so important to them to use it. That is what keeps this hobby so interesting to me; I'm always wanting to learn more.

I would encourage a high end speaker manufacturer or salesman that may possibly read this thread to chime in about their use of the wire like Bill did.

I'm convinced that my center speaker sounds fantastic with the Auric wire. I'm beefing up a resistor on the band pass section of the crossovers in my mains sometime soon, so the speakers have to come apart anyway, and if I can justify enough improvement using this wire, I don't have any problem spending the $150 or more it will take to rewire them with the Auric wire. They are 5 foot tall and I'll need a lot of wire. 

I appreciate everyone's comments and participation in this thread. :T

Mike


----------



## lcaillo

The probability that hook-up wire makes a significant difference is small, but the cost of using better wire is also small, so why not use the best that is reasonbly affordable and over-build from the start?


----------



## Mike Cason

lcaillo said:


> The probability that hook-up wire makes a significant difference is small, but the cost of using better wire is also small, so why not use the best that is reasonbly affordable and over-build from the start?


Excellent point!

Had I known about the better wire from the start, I would have certainly used it if I knew for sure it would be a better wire. My speaker project has gone on for several years and I'm constantly improving my system when I get more knowledge. That includes better xover components and drivers. Again, that's what DIY is all about!


----------



## thxgoon

If it genuinely improves your performance then it's worth it, but I'd have some hard data before investing $150. Personally, I can't see how running a smaller gauge can improve performance but I'm always learning 

I took a look at their website and I'm a bit leary of any products they may be selling. They offer some esoteric power cables and a product called the 'auric illuminator' which is supposed to enhance resolution of CD's and DVD's through some very unscientific (but convincing sounding) methods. I don't want to rain on your parade, but if you don't find definitive improvements, I don't want you to get duped :R


----------



## lcaillo

The probablility of objectively quantifying a difference in many of the things we do is vanishingly small. The probablility of there being sufficient investigation of most of these matters to objectively determine that there is no difference, in a manner that is convincing that all of the possible variables have been considered, is also rather small. That said, the rational thing to do is to overbuild if you have any doubts of the efficacy of a design. If you have no doubts or don't care, then use the cheapest components available.

Some would rather debate the issues than actually enjoy the results. That is fine. I am one who might fall into that category. For many, however, the matter is much more practical than theoretical...and you could say that debating such matters is abusing one's brain.


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

thxgoon said:


> If it genuinely improves your performance then it's worth it, but I'd have some hard data before investing $150. Personally, I can't see how running a smaller gauge can improve performance but I'm always learning


The fly in the ointment where 'higher quality' wire is concerned is that it can't alter the weakest links in the chain, which are the voice coils and inductors. When you consider how much plain old enameled copper are contained there a few feet of even pure platinum hook up wire is insignificant.


----------



## Mike Cason

Bill,

I like the way you put things in perspective. 

If perhaps the wire either myself or others may have used for hook up wire is or was inferior in our builds, the hook up wire would then become the weakest link and an upgrade would be in order. 

A high quality finished product doesn't have just one or two good parts in it, but rather a combination of the best affordable parts available to acheive this goal.

I've been looking at other companies that carry the hook up wire and Parts Connexion has 8 manufactureres of hook up wire, including the Auric and also Mundorf, a very well known company. That tells me there must be more than just hype about good wiring: http://www.partsconnexion.com/catalog/wire.html

This link may be worth looking at because some of the manufacturers explain more about their wire and why it is recommended for internal hook up wiring.

I agree with lcaillo to overbuild rather than skimping on such a small investment as hook up wire to ensure the best possible sound. Most of us have spent so much time and money to build our prized speaker systems to have the best we can, so that in itself would justify the upgrade in wire. 

Auric builds their own series of full range line array speakers which are extremely efficient, so they don't need wire larger than #18 gauge. I beleive they use #21 gauge in their speakers with no crossovers. If I were to rebuild my mains, I would probably use a larger wire than they offer for my Lambda woofers. 

I'll post more if I can get some data from the mfgs.

Mike


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

Mike Cason said:


> I'll post more if I can get some data from the mfgs.
> 
> Mike


What you'll get from manufacturers is justification for buying their products. That's the nature of business. OTOH claims like _stranded copper; each strand individually polished for better electron flow_ verge on a snake-oil pitch. The idea that a polished wire will pass electrons better than a non-polished wire flies in the face of basic physics. I personally pass on doing business with any manufacturer whose ad copy contains gross hyperbole concocted from whole cloth. 

Wire does make a measureable difference. However, that difference is so infinitesimal that it takes the most sophisticated tools to measure it, with sensitivity that greatly exceeds that of your ears. Moreover, where differences are measured there is no correlation between the cost of the wire and the results.


----------



## Mike Cason

Classic example of what you are saying Bill:

I purchased a shiny "Gold plated" Monster battery post terminal block to hook up some #8 wires to my Alpine amps for my service truck. They got my $25 to $30 bucks. Every other day I was cleaning the corrosion off of the terminals. I ran to the auto parts store and bought a lead terminal with a wing nut for $6.00 and haven't had a problem since. Dis-similar metals corrode and cause electrolysis! As an electrician I should have known that but the packaging looked so good! They too have engineers and should have known this problem, and probably did.

I've got an email in to the engineer. It will be interesting to hear back from him. 

I'm not pushing their product but after getting involved with this topic, I would like to find a close to it and want feel satisified I'm building the best I can without throwing money away.

Thanks Bill....:T


----------



## PT800

Long before you'll get any improvement in sound from using more expensive hookup wire, you'll improve sound by changing to a better crossover design.

The crossover design I use is the Charged-Coupled JBL TM design. I start with good quality polypropylene caps (Solen), which are moderately priced. 

How the CC design is different from ordinary crossovers is it uses capacitor series pairs, in place of single caps, throughout the circuit. The reason for the series pairs is to be able to place a positive 9v charge to the common point of each pair of caps. This, in effect, keeps the caps always on. So as the audio signal goes from positive cycle to negative cycle, the phase shift (distortion) does not occur, as it would when crossing the dielectric zero point.

The result is quite an improvement in the sound.


----------



## Mike Cason

PT 800,

I would love to see a schematic or a link to a photo of that JBL xover design. 


Bill: 

I have heard back from the engineer about the more expensive hook up wire. This may be the wire just for the folks that want to say that they have this type of wire in their speakers or it may indeed make them sound better. It is for the reader to discern. As you say, it may not be noticeable to the human ear but here is the engineer's reply:

"Mike

You did some nice work there, looks good. 

The wire twisting in pairs is very important as this keeps the paired signals close canceling the generated and just as important externally received signals. It increases the capacitance and reduces the inductance. The increased capacitance is not an issue as the amp totally ignores the extra current required to charge and discharge it however If the inductance is increased the amp has no control over the stored energy and it is absorbed by slowing the current flow and released into the load as the current flow starts to fall. Rule of thumb is a capacitor resists a change of voltage and an inductor resists a change of current flow. Both store energy but a cap stores it as a voltage charge and the inductor as current flow.

Hook up wire has several properties that will influence its ability to pass a clean signal. This seemingly simple product is very complex when you really get into it. There are electrical interactions between the electrical field and the dielectric. This can act as distortion or coloration if an improper insulation is used. Teflon is best with expanded polyethylene a close second however Teflon has issues. The process of making Teflon uses fluorine a very toxic and corrosive gas. This gas is released by Teflon throughout its life and is another reason to not use it in cookware! This gas will immediately start to deteriorate/corrode any metal it comes in contact with bare copper being very susceptible. Silver is much more impervious to this action and is the reason why most all Teflon wire is silver coated. This introduces a dissimilar metal problem into the mix with differing conductivities and transmission speeds, not recommended. There is the further issue of the very high temperatures needed to make Teflon coated wire. This is very harmful to the copper and can reduce its conductivity rather dramatically.

The conductor itself is quite important as well. It should be very high conductivity with minimum oxygen contamination as well as the minimum number of crystals per foot. Both are factors in recovering low level information and presenting a life like sound. There is also the issue of eddy currents to consider, these are destructive and impede signal flow. To have the minimum eddy current interaction the wire must be finely stranded in layers with alternate layers wound in opposing directions. This does not eliminate the problem but shifts it to a much higher frequency out of our area of interest. Note that this is where low mass comes into play, automatically low mass means lower eddy currents. This is why no larger wire than absolutely necessary should be used. There is also the problem with so called skin effect that I am not convinced is anything other than an eddy current problem. This increases the wires impedance at higher frequencies and is why wiring to tweeters should never be larger than 20 AWG.

Add all this together in a properly designed, sized and implemented hook up wire and the result is very noticeably better sound with the most noticeable part being low level information retrieval and high frequency clarity.

Roger" 


Most of this makes sense to me and I think I'll probably go ahead and re-wire my mains when I beef up one my midrange resistors. My mains sounds so fantastic already and I have so much time and money invested in them at this point that I can justify the added expense to know that I have done everything possible that I can, to have the finest sound I can get out of my system without making any other major changes, ie new crossovers or drivers. My center speaker is a testament that the combination of a good crossover design with the good wire gives me great results. I may not be hearing any improvements because of the Auric wire, but I am listening to a very fine sounding speaker, regardless.

Mike


----------



## lcaillo

I just noticed that you said it will cost $150 to rewire the speakers. Why so much? The wire I saw on their site was $1.14 per foot. $150 seems rather much just to feel good about over-building. Just to be clear, I really do not expect that it will make any difference. My point was that if it did not cost much there was no reason not to do it. No way I would put $150 into hookup wire inside speakers.


----------



## PT800

Mike Cason said:


> PT 800,
> 
> I would love to see a schematic or a link to a photo of that JBL xover design.
> Mike


Its really quite simple. You take any crossover schematic, for each original cap, you substitute with a pair of caps, that are *each* _twice the value _of that cap. Series pairs, that are each twice the value, result in total capacitance equal to the original cap value. (example: one 4uf cap replaced by two 8uf caps, wired in series)

Then a 6 megohm resistor is connected to each common point, of each pair, with the other end of the resistors then connected to the positive side of a 9v alkaline battery and negative side to ground.

These XO designs are only used by JBL for their top of the line speaker systems (K2 9800 and Everest DD66000)

The ones I built for a pair of 30 year old 3-way L212s cost me a little over $300. The original XOs were on one card for each speaker, but for the CC XOs, it required one card for each driver, for a total of 6 cards. Twice the caps @ twice the size takes alot of room.

If I were to build a pair of CC XOs for my newer PT800s the cost would be over $450 (needs bigger caps).
You can read more over at 
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5433&highlight=L212


----------



## Mike Cason

I didn't put a measuring tape to the speaker and measure the wiring. My 2 mains are very large and there would be two wires to each speaker, so I just threw out a number. I have 5 active drivers in each cabinet, plus the terminal cup and of course we don't count the 4 passive radiators. If I had to spend $150.00, I certainly would. If I needed to buy a more expensive and larger wire for my Lambda woofers if the #18 gauge Auric isn't large enough, that may increase the cost if I needed to purchase some Mundorf or other wire. I always shoot high. My center speaker sounds so good that I don't mind spending the money. Its sound may well be due to the new wiring. 

I have no other hobbies or interests or go out, so I'll be spending what others may spend on a couple of nights out or 1/2 price of a ball game ticket.

It's all in where your priorities and interests are.


----------



## Mike Cason

Thanks for the link and the reply. I've saved the link to the crossovers in my audio favorites and your post in a word document for when I get more time to look at it. I'm still cleaning up from Ike.

Thanks again, Mike



PT800 said:


> Its really quite simple. You take any crossover schematic, for each original cap, you substitute with a pair of caps, that are *each* _twice the value _of that cap. Series pairs, that are each twice the value, result in total capacitance equal to the original cap value. (example: one 4uf cap replaced by two 8uf caps, wired in series)
> 
> Then a 6 megohm resistor is connected to each common point, of each pair, with the other end of the resistors then connected to the positive side of a 9v alkaline battery and negative side to ground.
> 
> These XO designs are only used by JBL for their top of the line speaker systems (K2 9800 and Everest DD66000)
> 
> The ones I built for a pair of 30 year old 3-way L212s cost me a little over $300. The original XOs were on one card for each speaker, but for the CC XOs, it required one card for each driver, for a total of 6 cards. Twice the caps @ twice the size takes alot of room.
> 
> If I were to build a pair of CC XOs for my newer PT800s the cost would be over $450 (needs bigger caps).
> You can read more over at
> http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5433&highlight=L212


----------



## PT800

Mike Cason said:


> Thanks for the link and the reply. I've saved the link to the crossovers in my audio favorites and your post in a word document for when I get more time to look at it. I'm still cleaning up from Ike.
> 
> Thanks again, Mike


You're welcome, I sure don't envy you having to clean up that kind of mess. Good luck!


----------



## thxgoon

Mike, do you think you could PM me that engineers email address? Thanks!


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

Mike Cason said:


> The wire twisting in pairs is very important as this keeps the paired signals close canceling the generated and just as important externally received signals.


These concerns apply to interconnects, not to speaker cables. Specifically, they apply to low impedance devices driving high impedance loads, which, for instance, is the case with a CD player and receiver. An amp and speaker, however, is a high impedance device driving a low impedance load. 

The problem with most claims for improved performance via cables and other passive components is that most of them have some factual basis. For instance, cable 'skin-effect', most famously espoused by Monster, is real. But what Monster omits from their ad copy is that skin-effect, a major concern in long cables used for microwave frequencies, is not manifested in the audio bandwidth. 

When reading advertising copy you must keep in mind that one purpose of advertising is to convince the consumer of the need to either purchase something that they do not need or to spend more money than they have to for something that they do need. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, otherwise the Romans wouldn't have come up with the phrase Caveat Emptor.


----------



## Mike Cason

Quote:
Mike Cason wrote: 

The wire twisting in pairs is very important as this keeps the paired signals close canceling the generated and just as important externally received signals. 

Bill, please note that I didn't write that statement, but cut and pasted what the engineer had to say as can be noted in post #15. I'm here to learn and not debate. The reason I started the thread was to post my experiences, and ask questions as this is a topic not found in most forums.

Respectfuly, Mike




Bill Fitzmaurice said:


> These concerns apply to interconnects, not to speaker cables. Specifically, they apply to low impedance devices driving high impedance loads, which, for instance, is the case with a CD player and receiver. An amp and speaker, however, is a high impedance device driving a low impedance load.
> 
> The problem with most claims for improved performance via cables and other passive components is that most of them have some factual basis. For instance, cable 'skin-effect', most famously espoused by Monster, is real. But what Monster omits from their ad copy is that skin-effect, a major concern in long cables used for microwave frequencies, is not manifested in the audio bandwidth.
> 
> When reading advertising copy you must keep in mind that one purpose of advertising is to convince the consumer of the need to either purchase something that they do not need or to spend more money than they have to for something that they do need. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, otherwise the Romans wouldn't have come up with the phrase Caveat Emptor.


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

Mike Cason said:


> Mike Cason wrote:
> 
> Bill, please note that I didn't write that statement, but cut and pasted what the engineer had to say as can be noted in post #15.


I'm aware of that, it's just how the tag appeared after I culled the rest out. I'm not debating you, just offering an alternate objective view from someone who has nothing to gain either way, as opposed to the vendor.


----------



## ISLAND1000

Mike Cason said:


> I decided to start this thread because I've hardly seen much debate on this topic. I had to Google "hook up wire" to find posts about hook up wiring! Many of the posters that I did find talked about their scrap wire they used for their speakers, and so very few knew about good hook up wiring. Because this is such an important part of speaker building, I'm surprised I haven't read more posts about it. I have heard high end speaker salesmen talk about its use in their speakers when I visit their showrooms, but considered it as a sales pitch. DIY is always a learning curve!


 Mike,
even though you've asked for and received discussion on your stated topic, I think you've already convinced yourself that "special" wire is going to make that DIY project sound just a little bit better than the guy who uses Radio Shack hook-up wire. 
Mr. Fitzmaurice is extremely knowledgeable and his advice is at least as good the engineers you're in contact with. Remember, he's in the business himself and in time you'll realize what a wonderful resource he is.


----------



## Mike Cason

I visit and participate in the forums to learn and have learned a lot over the past four active years of participating in them.

Folks like Bill, Mike P., Sonnie, Wayne P. and so many others have been a great help and have been so generous with their time.

I guess my position is that if so many manufacturers of the hook up wire including Mundorf, produce and sell a lot of it and it can be found in high end speakers, then it's hard to fluff it off as snake oil without having data or more information to state otherwise. I did some more research on the manufacturer that gave a description of the wire in post #15, and they are a worldwide company with an outstanding reputation. It was amazing to see how many countries they actually have distributors located in. This isn't earned by selling snake oil or inferior products or telling lies to sell products. 

I started this thread to try to gather inputs from as many as I can in order to make a responsible decision to use the wiring because it's a not very talked about subject. If there is something I can learn from other sources, I'll certainly share the information and post it to this thread. I'm still busy getting electricity to homes suffered by Hurricane Ike and haven't had as much computer time as I need to do more research. I don't have money lying around to throw away if I won't notice a difference in performance.

I appreciate everyone's comments.

Mike


----------



## ISLAND1000

The "esoteric" or "boutique" speaker wire discussion has been beaten to death not only on this forum but practically all forums. I fall on the "common" wire hook-up side myself including inside the enclosure between drivers and between drivers and X-overs. 
I WOULD use "esoteric" speaker wire if I could discern some audible difference, I can't. I also think if there was a noticeable difference between wire type that many DIYers could hear or measure, we'd ALL be using it.
Continue your research until you're satisfied and make your own decisions. We're only here to give our opinions and share our experiences. Take em or leave em.


----------



## Lucky7!

Mike Cason said:


> I guess my position is that if so many manufacturers of the hook up wire including Mundorf, produce and sell a lot of it and it can be found in high end speakers, then it's hard to fluff it off as snake oil without having data or more information to state otherwise. I did some more research on the manufacturer that gave a description of the wire in post #15, and they are a worldwide company with an outstanding reputation. It was amazing to see how many countries they actually have distributors located in. This isn't earned by selling snake oil or inferior products or telling lies to sell products.
> 
> I'm still busy getting electricity to homes suffered by Hurricane Ike and haven't had as much computer time as I need to do more research. I don't have money lying around to throw away if I won't notice a difference in performance.


Mike,

The simple fact is that if I were a manufacturer, I would use the stuff too, even though I know it does diddly. Why? Because 'philes expect it to be there and 'believe' it has the sonic properties attributed to it that it might cost me sales if I didn't. So I'd speak to the cable manufacturer, get trade pricing and we'd both have advertising benefits. All this is the pragmatic me speaking, not the engineer (EE) who cannot find a single reason, audibly or technically to use the stuff.

I also work in the power industry on the tools in a trade position these days. Much more fun.


----------



## Mike Cason

ISLAND1000 said:


> The "esoteric" or "boutique" speaker wire discussion has been beaten to death not only on this forum but practically all forums. I fall on the "common" wire hook-up side myself including inside the enclosure between drivers and between drivers and X-overs.
> I WOULD use "esoteric" speaker wire if I could discern some audible difference, I can't. I also think if there was a noticeable difference between wire type that many DIYers could hear or measure, we'd ALL be using it.
> Continue your research until you're satisfied and make your own decisions. We're only here to give our opinions and share our experiences. Take em or leave em.


ISLAND1000,

This could very easily be the reason why I find little discussion about the esoteric wire in the many forums I participate in as I stated in my initial post. That's why I started this thread; to get inputs from fellow DIY'ers. 

While visiting the showrooms at Audio Concepts of Houston, a very high end store, the salesman told me my speakers could not sound good without the special wire and their lines of speakers had to be far superior because they had it. After asking for a demo, I just chuckled after hearing their ultra pricey speakers. My DIY project sounded far better than theirs. I didn't have the fancy woodwork and the bright and shiney pointed feet but I do have the sound reproduction that I have been working so hard to achieve, using standard oxygen free stranded wire as interconnects. I felt proud of my hard work as I was walking out with a couple of more SACDs knowing my mains still held their position as a very fine sounding pair of speakers. When I informally met the owner of a company who does sell the wire, my curiousity kicked back in again, remebering what the salesman told me at Audio Concepts. If the wire would help, I wanted to know more about it.

I know the owners of the store and have known the salesman who made this statement for over 5 years and he has been invited several times to come over and listen to my system. He lives close by and still won't come over. This doesn't surprise me for obvious reasons.

Thanks again for your comments.

Mike


----------



## JCD

I thought I'd throw something into the mix..

I can understand your logic and reasoning, but I think I'm going to stick with the generic wire crowd. 

Look at the back of most speakers these days. 
Two sets of binding posts in most hi-end speakers. Why? There is a lot (OK, I'm assuming here..) of empirical evidence that there is no appreciable (if any)difference if someone were to bi-wire their speakers. However, there is a segment in the audio community that SWEARS there is a night and day difference with bi-wiring. So, even if the speaker manufacturer doesn't believe in bi-wiring, they'll continue to construct their speakers with the dual binding posts -- and I know of one manufacturer that doesn't believe in bi-wiring, but still does offer the option -- because they don't want to limit their market.

The "better" hook-up wire being used by manufacturers could be same thing. Maybe not, but maybe so.

And even though I don't believe in it, if I'm one of those manufacturers, I'd probably offer it as an option as well. Again, why limit your market? And the margins on those products are going to be exceptionally high.

Again, these are just my opinions -- and make no mistake, I still consider myself a neophyte with this stuff.

JCD


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

JCD said:


> There is a lot (OK, I'm assuming here..) of empirical evidence that there is no appreciable (if any)difference if someone were to bi-wire their speakers.


The evidence is more than empirical. Bi-wiring can't work, to do so it would violate the Superposition Principle, which in physics basically states that 1+1 will always equal 2, never more, never less. 
But you're right about manufacturer's using components not because they work, but because the consumer thinks they work. Giving the customer what he wants is not necessarily the same as giving him what he needs.


----------



## Anthony

Bill, Audioholics did a large article on biwiring and whether or not it 'could' work.

To sum it all up, the extra cable resistance does change the transfer function versus just having it wired once. It does not change it much. So the audibility of these effects is debatable. But they did prove that it was 'possible'. And they pretty much make a living at debunking these kinds of things.

So for what it's worth . . .


----------



## PT800

On the other hand, you can use those dual sets of binding posts to bi-amp, which is an improvement. Disconnect the internal XO and install an external active XO.


----------



## Mike Cason

Bill Fitzmaurice said:


> But you're right about manufacturer's using components not because they work, but because the consumer thinks they work. Giving the customer what he wants is not necessarily the same as giving him what he needs.


Bill, 

A bit off topic but during my last visit to the same audio store, a salesman showed me some silver dollar size round pads that they had placed under each foot on each piece of integrated equipment on the rack in one of their demo rooms. He swore that they improve the sound because they absorb the shock from outside sounds and movements. At $15 bucks each, that would mean $240 for 4 separates to "help the sound quality". 

This sounds like the snake oil pitch you have referred to. He shure had himself convinced those little pads were worth the money! Have ya heard of them? :newspaper:

Mike


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

Mike Cason said:


> This sounds like the snake oil pitch you have referred to. He shure had himself convinced those little pads were worth the money! Have ya heard of them? :newspaper:
> 
> Mike


Not specifically, but there are literally hundreds of similar items out there. The only electronic gear that might benefit from shock absorbtion, leastwise at less than 120dB levels, are record turntables and tube gear with microphonic tubes. :rolleyesno:


----------



## lcaillo

Bill Fitzmaurice said:


> The evidence is more than empirical. Bi-wiring can't work, to do so it would violate the Superposition Principle, which in physics basically states that 1+1 will always equal 2, never more, never less.
> But you're right about manufacturer's using components not because they work, but because the consumer thinks they work. Giving the customer what he wants is not necessarily the same as giving him what he needs.


While I agree that there is no significant difference in Bi-Wiring, I do not agree with your conclusion and reasoning that there can be no effect. This is the kind of assumption that clouds much of the discussion about these matters. Naysayers often come up with reasons that are stated with such definitive reference to scientific principles or laws that it seems no debate is possible. The fact is that most of the snake oil in consumer electronics starts with some grain of truth and gets taken out of context or exaggerated. This case is no different. There certainly are some possibilities, none of them will account for audible differences IMO, but to deny even the possibility of an effect is to get off on the wrong foot.

Some of the worst science that I have seen starts with similar misuse of principles and assumptions about what one is going to find. The result is often research that begs more questions for the objective reader, while totally convincing those who start with similar assumptions. Rather than trying to prove a point, we need to focus on learning what we don't know. That may end up being effects that are completely insufficient to account for claimed differences, or it may require a study of the psychological factors that lead to silly conclusions about what sounds or looks better. Regardless, no one's mind is going to be changed by someone starting with an emphatic "it can't be so because of physics" argument.


----------



## Aaron Gilbert

Mike Cason said:


> ...
> If the wire performs like it is supposed to, I'll be rewiring my mains soon! The wire is not very expensive compared to what you might have in a good DIY speaker project. ($1.35 to $2.00 per ft, depending who you purchase it from).


$1.35 - $2.00 per foot to you is not expensive compared to a good DIY speaker project?? At those prices, I could have paid as much for wire as my entire crossover! I have never paid more than $0.20/foot for my hookup wire, except maybe the 10 gauge in my subwoofer, which might have been $0.40/foot. And that's the good stuff. I have gotten wire on closeout as cheaply as $0.05/foot. The 10 gauge is complete overkill by the way, but I had it on hand with no other planned use for it, so why not? I'm sure 18 gauge would do just as well, but it doesn't match the complete overbuild of the cabinet and driver. I use anywhere from 14-18 gauge inside my full range speakers, whatever I have on hand in the required length and colors.


----------



## PT800

Aaron Gilbert said:


> $1.35 - $2.00 per foot to you is not expensive compared to a good DIY speaker project?? At those prices, I could have paid as much for wire as my entire crossover! I have never paid more than $0.20/foot for my hookup wire, except maybe the 10 gauge in my subwoofer, which might have been $0.40/foot. And that's the good stuff. I have gotten wire on closeout as cheaply as $0.05/foot.



You much have built some really cheap crosovers then. Even @ $2/ft the cost of wire isn't all that much as there isn't a huge total combined length.
At $2/ft for hookup wire, I would have had to use 75 ft/speaker to match the cost of the crossover parts for that speaker. And I didn't use anywhere near 1/4 that amount of wire.


----------



## Aaron Gilbert

PT800 said:


> You much have built some really cheap crosovers then. Even @ $2/ft the cost of wire isn't all that much as there isn't a huge total combined length.
> At $2/ft for hookup wire, I would have had to use 75 ft/speaker to match the cost of the crossover parts for that speaker. And I didn't use anywhere near 1/4 that amount of wire.


Actually, no, I just have really tall speakers.  They need long runs of wire as the crossover is about five feet away (ok closer to four, but I like plenty of slack). It's only a two way, so the crossovers are roughly $25-30 worth of parts.


----------



## PT800

Aaron Gilbert said:


> Actually, no, I just have really tall speakers.  They need long runs of wire as the crossover is about five feet away (ok closer to four, but I like plenty of slack). It's only a two way, so the crossovers are roughly $25-30 worth of parts.


My 3-way crossover parts totaled $300/pr. For each speaker there is 3 cards, one for each driver. The biggest cost of the XOs is the size and number of caps used. The Charged-Coupled network requires twice as many caps @ twice the normal size compared to a normal XO.


----------



## Aaron Gilbert

PT800 said:


> My 3-way crossover parts totaled $300/pr. For each speaker there is 3 cards, one for each driver. The biggest cost of the XOs is the size and number of caps used. The Charged-Coupled network requires twice as many caps @ twice the normal size compared to a normal XO.


:gulp: Wow, that's way out of my price range.  All six drivers in a pair of my speakers only came to $140 total, so with the crossover, I'm at about $200 for the electrical parts. I read about the charged-coupled network the other day, here. It sounds interesting, but probably something I'd only try on a speaker with just a couple capacitors to begin with.


----------



## PT800

Aaron Gilbert said:


> :gulp: Wow, that's way out of my price range.  All six drivers in a pair of my speakers only came to $140 total, so with the crossover, I'm at about $200 for the electrical parts.I read about the charged-coupled network the other day, here. It sounds interesting, but probably something I'd only try on a speaker with just a couple capacitor to begin with.


Charge-Coupling will improve any speaker, but because of the cost involved, its only really cost worthy to what are already fairly high end speakers. I built them for what was JBL's top o line speaker 30 years ago.
If I were to build them for my 2 year old PT800, it would cost $225/speaker. Which is the main reason I haven't yet.:spend:


----------



## Lucky7!

To g to all the effort of charge coupling and designing a passive network, especially for a DIY design (different perhaps for a mod on an existing unit) seems hardly worth the cost. Use That as a deposit on an active system, and if you DIY the xover with tubes or FETs, you get the charge-coupling, at higher voltages for free.


----------



## PT800

A9X said:


> To g to all the effort of charge coupling and designing a passive network, especially for a DIY design (different perhaps for a mod on an existing unit) seems hardly worth the cost. Use That as a deposit on an active system, and if you DIY the xover with tubes or FETs, you get the charge-coupling, at higher voltages for free.


If one uses an active, bi-amped setup, you don't have a C-C network. And if building an active XO, how do you figure you get C-C for free. One can only have a C-C network by installing caps in pairs. And those caps sizes have to be at twice the normal size for any given circuit. I've never seen an active C-C network.


----------



## Lucky7!

Charge coupling in a passive xover is to add a DC bias across the cap(s) via battery, hence the need for two to block DC from getting to the driver or the amp outputs.

With a discrete tube or FET active xover, the caps in many cases will already have a DC bias across them depending upon how and where they are used in the circuit.


----------



## PT800

A9X said:


> Charge coupling in a passive xover is to add a DC bias across the cap(s) via battery, hence the need for two to block DC from getting to the driver or the amp outputs.


Actually, the 9v isn't across the caps, it only connected to the common point of each pair, through 6 megohm resistors, with the negative side of the 9v to ground. 
The positive charge then keeps the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point of the caps. That keeps the audio signal flowing w/o the phase shift that otherwise would occur as the current reverses flow.



> With a discrete tube or FET active xover, the caps in many cases will already have a DC bias across them depending upon how and where they are used in the circuit.


As for active XOs, I've have no experience with those.


----------



## Lucky7!

PT800 said:


> Actually, the 9v isn't across the caps, it only connected to the common point of each pair, through 6 megohm resistors, with the negative side of the 9v to ground.
> The positive charge then keeps the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point of the caps. That keeps the audio signal flowing w/o the phase shift that otherwise would occur as the current reverses flow.


I said they have a DC bias provided across them by the batteries, and they do. One side of the cap is at a higher potential (DC) than the other.


----------



## robbo266317

PT800 said:


> Actually, the 9v isn't across the caps, it only connected to the common point of each pair, through 6 megohm resistors, with the negative side of the 9v to ground.
> The positive charge then keeps the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point of the caps. That keeps the audio signal flowing w/o the phase shift that otherwise would occur as the current reverses flow.
> 
> 
> That would only be true for AC signals less than 9 volts peak to peak.
> Dees that mean you lose the benefit for larger signals?


----------



## PT800

robbo266317 said:


> PT800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the 9v isn't across the caps, it only connected to the common point of each pair, through 6 megohm resistors, with the negative side of the 9v to ground.
> The positive charge then keeps the audio signal from crossing the dielectric zero point of the caps. That keeps the audio signal flowing w/o the phase shift that otherwise would occur as the current reverses flow.
> 
> 
> That would only be true for AC signals less than 9 volts peak to peak.
> Dees that mean you lose the benefit for larger signals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a post from yesterday by Greg timbers, JBL Chief Systems Engineer, who hads been doing C-C crossover for years.
> 
> 
> _I was asked to make a brief response to this last post, so here it is. The capacitor biasing is something that has existed for many years. Tube equipment does it automatically since there is usually a large DC offset between stages. Some early transistor amps/preamps had two polarized caps in series with the center point going to ground through a large resistor.
> 
> I personally became aware of this technique for speaker systems through communications with Ed Meitner, currently of EMM Labs. He is a wealth of information regarding these "tricks" to help linearize or improve the sound of passive components.
> 
> It turns out that the bias trick actually increases measured IM distortion and the higher the bias voltage, the greater the increase. It is not by a great amount, but it is measureable. The sound imporvement (or change) is very rarely perceived as worse and is never linked with a increase in IM distortion. The sonic effect is one of smoothness, increased spaciallity, detail and stuff like that. IM has a muddling or confusing effect so I doubt that this particular steady state measurement is explaining the sound difference either way.
> 
> Simply put, we are striving to create a class A situation but as was just pointed out, depending on the bias voltage with respect to the voltage across the capacitor, we may only have an "A" condition up to a particular drive level. So if it makes you happier, consider the change to be class AB, but heavily biased to A. You must also keep in mind that the voltage across the input terminals of the crossover network does not tell you what voltage or current is applied to any individual component. Some parts block signal and others shunt signal so the loading on a particular part is not obvious. For the most part, the caps are well taken care of with 9 volts, even at healthy drive levels. The obvious choice for 9 volts is the small cheap battery and holders that are available. No current is involved so a smoke detector battery and holder is a natural choice.
> 
> We did do one system with 18 v (M9500). Certain of the Japanese reviewers thought it was an improvement. I can't personally tell any difference. I am also told on a regualr basis (again by our Asian customers) that the battery must be changed at least every 90 days and that the sound degrades after that. Once again, I have not been able to "hear" any difference after 90 days and the battery is certainly still good for many years from a voltage standpoint.
> 
> What playing around I have done with initial application of a battery to a biased circuit (that has not been previously powered up) is that it takes about 3-5 seconds for the soundstage to change. I have tried to measure the voltage level in that time period and it seems that several volts is all that is necessary to accomplish 90% or more of the improvement. Once a circuit has been energized, it is nearly impossible to return it to zero. You have to individually short out each cap and leave them shorted for a while or else they will creep back up somewhat. If you replace the battery with a short and play the system for a while, the caps will start to bias themselves, although not to anywhere near the same degree.
> 
> You can take this opinion for what it has cost you. I have been very pleased with biasing for many years. I use it in all applications that involve a capacitor and I have rarely been disappointed. Results may vary so if it doesn't do it for you that is okay too. It cost a bloody fortune to implement as it requires 4 times the capacitance and double the capacitor parts count. The network size gets huge as well. Inspite of this, I have never heard a capacitor type that didn't improve (or change) including the nearly perfect teflon variety._
Click to expand...


----------



## DrWho

I always find it interesting that proponents of special wire rarely seem as equally concerned with the influence of the components in passive crossovers.

I also don't think it's relevant to compare the effects of speaker wire to the properties of the speaker motor - the voice coil is part of the load you're trying to drive and it's up to the loudspeaker engineer to choose the behavior of the motor for a given voltage at its terminals. The impedance (both real and imaginary) is not a free variable and is very much determined by the desired behavior.

I can't seem to find the article, but someone actually sat down to measure a real system to see if bi-wiring made any difference. I'm really bad at remembering numbers, but I want to say the difference was something like -48dB IMD bi-wired versus -44dB IMD with normal wire. The same author also did some measurements on how the acoustical loading in front of the tweeter gets modulated by the woofer, and was responsible for similar levels of IMD.

I also think a lot of the models and math so many refer to are greatly flawed - mainly because the models are already assuming ideal wire models. Capacitances, resistances, and inductances cause roll-offs and changes to the power-transmission, but will never introduce new frequencies - which ultimately is the source of distortion. 

New frequencies will be created when the value of any impedance (real or imaginary) changes with time. The most simple example is the wire heating caused by the signal...now I'm not saying that this is an issue with properly sized wire, but I would expect the math mongers to include something like this in their analysis. Just to throw rough numbers out there, if your speaker is 10ohms, and the wire impedance goes from 0.1 to 0.2ohms, then you end up seeing just under 0.1dB of compression. What's a realistic change in impedance from the heating of a large bass transient? I have no clue, but I know it can bite you when you designing other audio circuits (cheap ceramic caps are notorious for this).

But getting back to my original point...the non-linearity of capacitors and especially inductors in passive speaker crossovers is very real. I'm very much not a proponent of bi-wiring, but only because the half ohm DCR's and 0.1% THD from core saturation in your inductors totally swamps anything the wire might do....and the only way to get away from passives is to go with actives - and then you're forced into multiple sets of wires anyway. 

Active crossovers also offer all sorts of other measurable advantages that have plenty of documented correlations to audible improvement too - especially when you get into the digital processors.

Anyways, if I find that article on bi-wiring distortions I'll be sure to post it. I was very skeptical of it at first, but the reasoning was very sound and grasped in the real world (no fancy unrelated theory) - but that's kind of a given when doing real measurements at audio frequencies - another thing so often missing from these discussions (and of which I too am also guilty). I've not measured wires, but I've measured a lot of non-linear inductors lately...

As far as DC biasing of caps...if you start exploring a lot of the pro audio gear out there, I think you might be surprised by how often this is done (we do it all the time at work too). It gets you away from crossover distortion, which I think is classically considered to improve low level detail. The class AB mode that the JBL engineer is talking about happens when you increase the voltage beyond the bias level - that threw me for a loop until I figured out what he was trying to say with the AB comment.


----------



## robbo266317

Hi PT800 & Dr Who,

Thanks for your quick replies.

A quick background: Did elec eng at ncle uni, have been building spkrs since ~1980.
I recently (6 months ago) found this forum and it has lots of great ideas.

I'm not sure how I came across this thread originally? 

The DC biased caps is not one I have seen before in a crossover design & it is an interesting concept! 
I was not trying to discredit the idea since I have not tested it myself!

I am currently building a new set of speakers, tri-amped, which is why I have been looking through these forums for the last six months for ideas.
The wealth of experience here plus the REW tool is simply amazing.

P.S. Entropy requires no maintenance!


----------



## PT800

robbo266317 said:


> Hi PT800 & Dr Who,
> 
> Thanks for your quick replies.
> 
> A quick background: Did elec eng at ncle uni, have been building spkrs since ~1980.
> I recently (6 months ago) found this forum and it has lots of great ideas.
> 
> I'm not sure how I came across this thread originally?
> 
> The DC biased caps is not one I have seen before in a crossover design & it is an interesting concept!
> I was not trying to discredit the idea since I have not tested it myself!
> 
> I am currently building a new set of speakers, tri-amped, which is why I have been looking through these forums for the last six months for ideas.
> The wealth of experience here plus the REW tool is simply amazing.
> 
> P.S. Entropy requires no maintenance!


JBL might be the only speaker company using Charged-Coupled type crossovers. And at that only their top of the line Everest II and K2 speakers have C-C XOs. 
The reason is the cost of such crossovers. The C-C XOs I built for my custom L212s were $150/ea. The original crossovers required one card, the C-C required three, one for each driver.
If I were to build C-C XOs for my newer PT800s, the cost would be at least $225/ea, as they require larger caps.


----------



## DrWho

PT800 said:


> JBL might be the only speaker company using Charged-Coupled type crossovers.....


....in speakers. It's a whole of a lot cheaper to do it with line-level filters, which is what I was trying to allude to earlier. I wasn't trying to imply that it's common in speakers. But for what it's worth, there's no reason you can't go to a lower quality cap to bring the cost down in your speaker - once you move away from the crossover distortion, then the differences in caps don't matter much (as long as you're not experience capacitance shifts from voltage/heat/etc...).

I've read reports that claim two charge-coupled lytics can sound better than a single film cap. I've not tried it for myself (yet), but I'll go ahead and spread the rumor...


----------



## PT800

DrWho said:


> ....in speakers. It's a whole of a lot cheaper to do it with line-level filters, which is what I was trying to allude to earlier. I wasn't trying to imply that it's common in speakers. But for what it's worth, there's no reason you can't go to a lower quality cap to bring the cost down in your speaker - once you move away from the crossover distortion, then the differences in caps don't matter much (as long as you're not experience capacitance shifts from voltage/heat/etc...).
> 
> I've read reports that claim two charge-coupled lytics can sound better than a single film cap. I've not tried it for myself (yet), but I'll go ahead and spread the rumor...


A chain is only as good as its weakest link. 
In the posts made by Greg Timbers, at audioheritage.org, he mentions using Solen polypropylene caps in C-C networks.

Those of *us that have built *C-C networks have no reason to change that thought process. The results are to good to go cheap.

With that said, I wouldn't spend the money for just any old set of cheap speakers. C-C networks are worth it on what is already a good quality speaker system.


----------

