Correct speaker cable for 100W speakers

STaN

What kinda cable do i need for this, there are different sizes, amp ratings etc etc

I'm near maplins... any ideas?

Slaphead07

The power rating of a speaker isn't important when buying speaker cable, only the quality of the apeakers and whatever amp & source you're using. I'd suggest that 79 strand cable is a minimum for anybody... Maplins have it. Check to see if it's cheaper to buy a reel than whatever lenghts you need. At the risk of being patronising get the two lengths the same (even if one speaker is 2 foot from the amp and the other 10) becasue you want the signal to arrive at both speakers simultaneously (spl?).
After that you're into brands like Audiquest or QED up to Van Den Hul or Nordost. €3,000 - €4,000 would not be unusual to spend on speaker cable if you were into High End stuff.

MoreBeer

Buy some standard 13Amp mains cable from your local diy store. This is more than adequate for your needs unless you are an extreme Hi-Fi Buff (people who generally latch on to the latest fad). I have always used mains cable for this purpose and have been very happy with the results.

Calibos

Without wanting to get into a debate about high end medium end or even low end speaker cable. You can use bell wire from your local woodies if you want. That said I use the cheapest 'made for the purpose' speaker cable I can find. ie 10c a metre stuff.

[edit] just saw morebeers post. Mains cable would be fine too. Once read a story about a big hifi show in the states where everyone was raving about some high end speaker companies demo. Everyone wanted to know what the amazing orange speaker cable was because if people were going to buy these 10,000 dollar speakers they wanted to use the same cables too. They were directed to the local hardware store across the road and told to ask for the electric lawnmower extension leads. I cannot understand people who will spend a thousand quid on speaker cable which 'may' give them a subjective tiny improvement in sound assuming they can convince themselves it isn't nonsense and they didn't waste their money. If they had sold on their speakers and added that 1000 quid to the proceeds and bought better speakers, they could get a sound improvement that everyone could hear and not just themselves and their 'Golden' ears.

Slaphead07

bell wire is not speaker cable... it simply cannot carry the frequencies that any half-decent system requires. An utterly false economy.
Mains cable can work (I've used it myself) but it's not for everyone. I found it a bit bright and the bass flabby. It's basic solid core copper and worth trying but you may find after a while that the bass is boomy and the trebles a little indistinct. If you want real speaker cable try the 79 stand stuff.

I don't get why posters feel the need to slag off those who do spend big bucks on cable? I tried many different types of cable (some s/h some on loan) before settling on Nordost Blue Haven - I didn't feel the need to insult anybody with petty snide comments in the process though.

STaN

Slaphead07 wrote:

The power rating of a speaker isn't important when buying speaker cable, only the quality of the apeakers and whatever amp & source you're using. I'd suggest that 79 strand cable is a minimum for anybody... Maplins have it. Check to see if it's cheaper to buy a reel than whatever lenghts you need. At the risk of being patronising get the two lengths the same (even if one speaker is 2 foot from the amp and the other 10) becasue you want the signal to arrive at both speakers simultaneously (spl?).
After that you're into brands like Audiquest or QED up to Van Den Hul or Nordost. €3,000 - €4,000 would not be unusual to spend on speaker cable if you were into High End stuff.

I dont suppose you know the code for it? They had about 20 different types and sizes!

Slaphead07

STaN wrote:

I dont suppose you know the code for it? They had about 20 different types and sizes!

Of the 79 strand stuff? odd. It's like buying wine in a restuarant... look at the cheapest and then go up a few! The cheapest would do you I'm sure but if you pay a bit more you'll get better insulation or purer copper...

Ghost Train

STaN wrote:

I dont suppose you know the code for it? They had about 20 different types and sizes!

thats the 79 strand standard cable
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=50&TabID=1&QV=Y&C=EBook&U=Ecat

this is the ofc slightly better stuff
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=51&TabID=1&QV=Y&C=EBook&U=Ecat

cable is not that expensive so best to get proper loudspeaker cable, why spend lots of money on equipment only to limit it with bad cable

Slaphead07

eolhc wrote:

cable is not that expensive so best to get proper loudspeaker cable, why spend lots of money on equipment only to limit it with bad cable

I agree it's best to spend what you can but cable can be expensive and depending on the lengths you need it can get very expensive. If you're wiring an entire home cinema then even a litle bit extra per metre can add up.

Given that these are "no name" speakers I think 79 strand will be more than adaquate. If the speakers were branded or the cable for an installation I'd go for a higher quality/price.

ZENER

I think if the OP was a "serious hi-fi buff" he/she would not have asked for a cable for 100 watt speakers. The question would have included the make/model of amplifier and the make/model of speaker along with bi-wiring details. No insult intended OP.

Based on that I would assume he/she simply wants a diameter size for a cable capable of carrying VxI=100W.

Any .75mm flex will be more than sufficient for this.

ZEN

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote:

I think if the OP was a "serious hi-fi buff" he/she would not have asked for a cable for 100 watt speakers. The question would have included the make/model of amplifier and the make/model of speaker along with bi-wiring details. No insult intended OP.

I agree completely but 79 strand allows a bit of upgrading in the future. It's still cheap and I suspect a better buy in the long run.

vms7ply9t6dw4b

What gauge is 79 strand. Would it be close to 18 gauge?

mathias

Based on that I would assume he/she simply wants a diameter size for a cable capable of carrying VxI=100W.

Again , this is another area of consumer electronics where misuse of terms leads to a hell of a lot of confusion , for amp output power read this for a good start in the subject ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power

The short version is , there is no such thing as Watts RMS , the term should be RMS , or continuos sine power, but not watts( see the Wiki )
Also note the points near the end about how retailers " massage " these figures.

Also , whichever term is used , it is not equivalent to the AC power calculation of Watts = VxI , which is just as well cos if it were most speaker cables would disappear (along with the house as well in all probability ) in a mushroom of smoke !!

As an example , my own Sony amp is rated at 170W per channel , yet the max output voltage on the speaker terminals is rated at 2V , so if we use the standard definition of Watts as V x I then each channel is putting 170/2 = 85 amps on the line , given that this is supposedly per channel and there are 7 then this is 85 x 7 = 595 amps , clearly ridiculous !

No the figure which manufacturers are deriving from the calculations in the Wiki and calling " Watts " are nothing of the sort , and is an RMS value derived from either the voltage or the current , it should not be called Watts.

ZENER

mathias wrote:

. . . for amp output power read this for a good start in the subject ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power

A good explanation.

The short version is , there is no such thing as Watts RMS , the term should be RMS , or continuos sine power, but not watts( see the Wiki )
Also note the points near the end about how retailers " massage " these figures.

Because of the reactive, rather than resistive, nature (impedance instead of resistance) of loudspeakers the instantanious measurement of power would actually be lower than the way I've quoted it above. Assuming voltage and current are in phase then the instantanious power at any point will be the same. However as this isn't the case in the reactive load of a loudspeaker we have the term real power.

Also , whichever term is used , it is not equivalent to the AC power calculation of Watts = VxI , which is just as well cos if it were most speaker cables would disappear (along with the house as well in all probability ) in a mushroom of smoke !!

As an example , my own Sony amp is rated at 170W per channel , yet the max output voltage on the speaker terminals is rated at 2V , so if we use the standard definition of Watts as V x I then each channel is putting 170/2 = 85 amps on the line , given that this is supposedly per channel and there are 7 then this is 85 x 7 = 595 amps , clearly ridiculous !

What's actually ridiculous is that you've not taken the speaker impedance into account :

Assuming 8 ohm speakers:

I=V/R = 2/8 = 0.25A W=VxI = 2X0.25 = 0.5Watts ???

I'd look for my money back if I were you !!!!

ZEN

mathias

What part of the phrase , " RMS - not watts " didnt you get , 170 is the correct figure , Watts is the incorrect term !!:rolleyes:

My calculation was derived from W = VxI , given the supposed figure of 170( watts ? ) and the maximum voltage , I arrived at a ridiculous result , the same as you with the other calculation with the impedance , however my point was to illustrate that Watts is clearly not the correct term , whereas you still seem to think it is ?

ZENER

mathias wrote:

What part of the phrase , " RMS - not watts " didnt you get , 170 is the correct figure , Watts is the incorrect term !!:rolleyes:

So what unit do you use for Power then ? Does your amplifier deliver 170 onions into the loudspeakers ?

I think the author is making the point that "RMS" is incorrect, not watts. So saying your amplifier delivers 170W RMS is wrong as it takes no account of speakers inductance or capacitance, i.e reactance and the correct term should be mean or average.

The sine wave power is found by averaging the instantaneous power output over a long period of time (or one complete cycle), so it is actually the average power or mean power. The term RMS is used mistakenly due to the fact that the mean power is calculated from the RMS voltage and current (or one of them and the impedance); power being proportional to the square of voltage or current.

ZEN

mathias

The term RMS is used mistakenly due to the fact that the mean power is calculated from the RMS voltage and current

This quote is the important one ,


As the article states , neither RMS nor Watts is correct here , however its an RMS calculation at the root of the equation that gives you 170 ( or whatever ), ( usually based on a Ikhz sine wave through 8 ohm over a fixed long time period ), so RMS is more correct than Watts. And its really the reason why manufacturers use the term RMS , mistakenly or no.

As plenty have pointed out , it should be called something like continous sine power , or mean average power . But because the term Power is in there you shouldn't jump straight to Watts , as Watts has a fixed mathematical definition that could lead to the confusion we are working through now.

This is clearer and explains it better ,
http://www.meyersound.com/support/papers/Power_Ratings_Tech_Note.pdf
to quote ,

When an amplifier is rated in RMS watts , this is a shorthand way of saying " average watts obtained by the RMS method.

And average watts obtained by the RMS method , is neither the standard definition for RMS , or the standard definition for Watts , as can be seen in the calculations

ZENER

Ok, I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out exactly what is under debate here. First let me say that I am under no illusion that makers of amplifiers massage the figures to look good and ratings like Peak power or PMPO have no place in real world situations and only provide nice figures to confuse consumers at purchase time.

Are we discussing these terms here ar are you saying that electrical energy in the audio amplifier context is not measured in Watts ? Every article you've linked to gives the power rating in watts even the last one. Perhaps the correct measurement should be SPL ? but this can only be measured with a speaker connected, some speakers are more efficient than others and the makers would have a field day with the figures here !

RMS watts is an easy to reproduce figure and a good way of giving relative power ratings when comparing amplifiers.The figure takes little account of the program source other than it's a pure 1Khz Sine wave but its reproducable on any amplifier.

From here - according to the last link you provide - we use watts as a way of determining the quality of the amplifier and it's ability to produce dynamic peaks from real world sources into resistive loads.

The author discusses the power supplys ability to maintain the power delivery under heavy load which is the true ability of an amplifier to reproduce the input signal faithfully and without distortion. This is what seperates the men from the boys so to speak.

Another thing, you stated earlier that your Sony amplifier produced only 2V at it's output terminals and used this figure to prove your point about the current in the cable. I honestly think you are mistaken here. Most amplifiers use split rail PSUs (to avoid using large capacitors in the output stages) with > +/- 30Vdc, this means that, assuming good regulation, the amplifier can deliver sine waves with peaks of +/- 30v - Vce which for bipolar transistors is about 1v giving about +/-29V or 58v p-p. This is where peak power is determined so its 29v peak across your speaker load.
Of course cheaper amplifiers could not maintain this figure and PSUs run out of steam - discharging capacitors quickly and introducing ripple to the supply rails which distorts sound and reducing available power from the amplifier. But these are real world things not quotes - seldomly divulged numbers.

We are probably talking about the exact same thing here but from different angles you know.

ZEN

TKK

What about using two core stranded mains flex? Is the only difference that it is not ofc?

Slaphead07

TKK wrote:

What about using two core stranded mains flex? Is the only difference that it is not ofc?

Oh it works alright but it's not great. Depends very much on the charachter of the amps used.

If Stan is still reading this (and I wouldn't blame him if he wasn't) just go get the 79 strand cable and you'll be fine for many happy years.

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

Oh it works alright but it's not great.

Quantify "not great". In a blind test could YOU tell the difference ? Is the difference electrically measurable ? Highly sceptical of all audiophile claims, in fact even audiophiles are highly sceptical !!

If Stan is still reading this (and I wouldn't blame him if he wasn't) . . .

Yeah, went a little off topic ok. But informative and educational I thought.

ZEN

Kell

ZENER wrote:

In a blind test could YOU tell the difference ?

Pretty much yeah. I'm the sort that knows when the amp is cold or not from the sound, or if a cable has been changed or, or, or.

Mind you, my hearing is well about average too so maybe that accounts for it.

K-

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote:

Quantify "not great". In a blind test could YOU tell the difference ?

Yeah... easily. I was using good quality Audioquest F14 cable but it was old so I tried some silver wire, then mains, then braided CAT5 (very good too), some borrowed 'Transparent' cables but finally had to bite the bullet and try Nordost Blue Haven - which I bought and I'm very happy with them.
Cables do make a difference and different components have different sonic properties. What's so difficult to grasp there?

Audiophiles are cynical too btw, yes there's a lot of snake-oil salesmen out there but don't just assume that audiophiles are, by definition, gullible. Most of the Hifi heads I know are not rich so we have to choose carefully.

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

. . . Cables do make a difference and different components have different sonic properties. What's so difficult to grasp there?

There are many different characteristics that might make one turntable or speaker or cd player different to the next turnatable speaker or cd player. Each of these contains a multitude of components each of which can effect sound quality.

Wire, though, contains a material with sufficient free electrons that facilitate the flow of electrical current. So long as the wire has enough free electrons to support the current it will do so without problems, the connectors at each end ensure good electrical conductivity between the wire and the sockets - all that I understand and can measure. What I cannot get is how someone could "hear" some difference that can't be measured or where the measurement is so minute as to be almost ignoreable. If you read the link I posted there are so many reasons why OFCC is a swizz, and don't just rely on that link there are plenty more.

I don't doubt you want to believe you hear a difference to justify the silly money these companies ask you to pay for their products. The cables are simply mumbo jumbo wrapped in dodgy research and playing on the oooh factor when a couple of seemingly logical technical facts are twisted to make it look true. One such thing used several years ago was the fact that high frequencies ( no mention of how high mind you) travelled in the outer layers of a copper. for this reason more cores should be used to allow the high frequencies travel unhindered. All this is of course very true and proveable too - the only thing they left out was the small fact that this only takes effect in frequencies above several MHz at very low levels and into GHz at high levels - well outside the human hearing range.

I can believe that bi-wiring and bi-amping would make a measureable and audible difference to reproduction or that a larger cable has a measurably lower resistance to current thus making it more suitable or that corrosion free connectors can help the signal path but I will simply never accept that paying exorbitant amounts of money on a cable to carry audio signals is beneficial until it can be measured in real terms.

Audiophiles are cynical too btw, yes there's a lot of snake-oil salesmen out there but don't just assume that audiophiles are, by definition, gullible. Most of the Hifi heads I know are not rich so we have to choose carefully.

Maybe instead of listening to your money you should just listen to your music ??

ZEN

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote:

Maybe instead of listening to your money you should just listen to your music ??

ZEN

Why do you assume I don't? The music comes first always.

Kell

ZENER wrote:

What I cannot get is how someone could "hear" some difference that can't be measured or where the measurement is so minute as to be almost ignoreable.

Kell wrote:

Mind you, my hearing is well about average too so maybe that accounts for it.

Worth quoting again. Maybe people can hear the difference but have never had their hearing checked to find out if they can hear a wider frequency range.

K-

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote:

So long as the wire has enough free electrons to support the current it will do so without problems, the connectors at each end ensure good electrical conductivity between the wire and the sockets - all that I understand and can measure. What I cannot get is how someone could "hear" some difference that can't be measured or where the measurement is so minute as to be almost ignoreable.

Anyone who thinks they can measure the musicality of a componant using a multi-meter knows little of Hifi and nothing of music.

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

Anyone who thinks they can measure the musicality of a componant using a multi-meter knows little of Hifi and nothing of music.

. . . . and anyone who thinks they can measure "musicality" in strands euros and cents knows nothing at all of either!!!

Musicality is a function of the music itself and has nothing to do with the technical ability or otherwise of a wire or loudspeaker. The feeling of a piece of music is as clear if not clearer when there is no speakers at all, i.e. acoustic and live. The irony is that hifi buffs spend thousands trying to persue perfection in what was recorded best without it !

Agree to differ IMO.

ZEN

Slaphead07

ZENER wrote:

. . . . and anyone who thinks they can measure "musicality" in strands euros and cents knows nothing at all of either!!!

Despite your presumptions I don't know anybody who does that.

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

Despite your presumptions I don't know anybody who does that.

Nor do I . . . .

Slaphead07 wrote:

. . . . If you want real speaker cable try the 79 stand stuff.

I don't get why posters feel the need to slag off those who do spend big bucks on cable? . . . .

ZEN

Slaphead07

and?

I'll continue to trust my ears over the banal ramblings of an uninformed troll.

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

and?

I'll continue to trust my ears over the banal ramblings of an uninformed troll.

. . . . and so what were reasonable arguments, healthy debate and differences of opinion decend into name calling and insults. . . .

ZEN

Slaphead07

I have no idea what you're trying to say it that post. Anyhoo....

Your posts are based on the premise that somebody who pays good money for good cable for good cable is a fool (long before I might have insulted you) whereas I know I don't judge cable by it's price. I heard the cheap stuff and I've heard the expensive and I settled on what sounded best to me. I don't have to explain myself to you nor do I intend reading any more of your "facts" based on your own selective assumtions. Welcome to my ignore list.

The Ritz

Slaphead07,

I'll continue to trust my ears over the banal ramblings of an uninformed troll.

You're entitled to express your views, but you're not entitled to insult other people because you don't agree with theirs.

Consider this as a yellow card............


Ritz.

Slaphead07

The Ritz wrote:

Slaphead07,




You're entitled to express your views, but you're not entitled to insult other people because you don't agree with theirs.

Consider this as a yellow card............


Ritz.

If you care to read Zeners posts you'll find he views all audiophiles as gullible fools - and this in a HiFi forum ironically. The purpose of this forum is to give the best possible advice to those to ask.... suggesting bell wire as speaker cable is just nonsense but if that's the level of advice you wish to dole out then I suspect I don't belong here anyway. My comments were not an insult but a measured and accurate response.

The Ritz

Slaphead07,

If you care to read Zeners posts you'll find he views all audiophiles as gullible fools - and this in a HiFi forum ironically.

I read the thread before posting a warning to you - I didn't come to that conclusion.

The purpose of this forum is to give the best possible advice to those to ask.... suggesting bell wire as speaker cable is just nonsense but if that's the level of advice you wish to dole out then I suspect I don't belong here anyway.

I agree that people should be given good advice - but that doesn't preclude discussion and different opinions, nor does it grant the giver of "good" or even "the best possible" advice a licence to insult other people.

My comments were not an insult but a measured and accurate response.

I regard calling someone "an uninformed troll" is an insult.

I don't tend to intervene in threads, even less explain an intervention on thread but I think I've made the position clear here. It's obvious that you have a serious interest in hifi and your advice is very welcome on the forum. Letting a discussion descend to posting insults because someone holds a different view is not acceptable.

People reading this or any other thread will quickly form their own view as to what is useful advice and what is interesting discourse. People reading a thread which terminates in an insult from someone professing to be a hifi enthusiast are likely to form a very different conclusion.

The aim here is to have a friendly place with good advice available.


This thread is closed.


Ritz.