My DIY Project & a Forgotten LINK

[VE4CAN]

<font color='#000000'>HI
I will be starting a speaker cable DIY project soon.
2 months ago I came across a site that offered a correlation between capacitance vs inductance and the distance between the conductors and what happens when you change the distance between the conductors.

The site suggested a design solution to get low capacitance and low inductance.

<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('> *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('> I didn't bookmark the site

CAN ANYONE PROVIDE ME THE LINK..


brian</font>

[Dick Hertz]

<font color='#000000'>Brian,
I'm not sure if this is where you want to be, but if you're interested in DIY audio cables, Jon Risch is the man.

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/cables.</font>

[Dick Hertz]

<font color='#000000'>Let's try again. Piece o' crap geocities!

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/cables.htm</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Dick;

Please refrain from posting links to Jon Rischs cable receipts as we feel that his designs can do more harm than good. *IE. his psuedo twin feeder coax cable receipts where he shorts the center conductor to the adjacent ground shield of the other cable may reduce inductance, but at the extreme expense of adding cable capacitance and reducing the benefit of the shielding. *In addition, the cable resistance of his recommended cable is almost 2x greater than standard 10AWG zip cord.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/pages/technicaldocs/89259tech.htm



We have reviewed much of his website and found most of the content therein to be either incorrect, imcomplete, or very misleading. *Audioholics.com does not stand for this type of deception and thus we will not support it. *Thank you.

edited: added line to Belden Cable specification</font>

[VE4CAN]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Dick Hertz : Let's try again. Piece o' crap geocities!

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/cables.htm
****

No it wasn't the one that I had in mind.

But your's sure looks like it's worthy of a good read.
I certainly bookmarked yours.

We will see what other people can offer.
Thanks for the help

brian</font>

[VE4CAN]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>gene : Dick;

Please refrain from posting links to Jon Rischs cable receipts as we feel that his designs can do more harm than good. *IE. his psuedo twin feeder RG-6 cable receipts where he shorts the center conductor to the adjacent ground shield of the other cable may reduce inductance, but at the extreme expense of adding cable capacitance and reducing the benefit of the shielding. *We have reviewed much of his website and found most of the content therein to be either incorrect, imcomplete, or very misleading. *Audioholics.com does not stand for this type of deception and thus we will not support it. *Thank you.
OK GENE
I NOTED YOUR COMMENT.

THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP AS THE PROJECT MAY HAVE INCLUDED A SHIELDED CABLE TWIN FEEDER INSTALLATION.

BTW IS THIS POSITION POSTED ON THIS SITE?<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

brian</font>

<font color='#000000'>Risch does not recommend shorting the shield to ground via a 0.01 cap. &nbsp;The additional braided shield is hard connected to the ground at one end of the cable (usually the source) and then connected at the other end via a 0.01 microF cap.</font>

<font color='#000000'>I also wouldn't recommend using coax cables as speaker cables. &nbsp;The DC resistance is too high and the pair to pair capacitance would be over 50pF/ft resulting in a difficult load to many amplifiers if cable lengths are reasonably long, say over 50ft. &nbsp;I really think audio people tend to play down the importance of a cable with low capacitance just to reduce inductance. &nbsp;I wouldn't give amp companies, especially tube amps, too much benefit of a doubt regarding their margin of stability they design into their products. &nbsp;

BTW, this topic was posted over at avsforum by one of your members, not sure why, but I also addressed it there as well.

Also, from a cosmetics standpoint, I would rather have something that looks nicer <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

AVSForum Page (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251178&highlight=audioholics)</font>

[Bprest0n]

<font color='#000000'>That cable receipt is a little high in capacitance, but nothing like a Kimber or Goetz, or Analysis Plus. &nbsp;Those guys are almost in the nF/ft category and I am sure that can't be a good thing for amplifier stability. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'></font>

[VE4CAN]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW, this topic was posted over at avsforum by one of your members, not sure why, but I also addressed it there as well.</td></tr></table>
Suppers_Ready
I've posted my request on 4 forums in order to find this site.
I wish review the site before I proceed with my project.
<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('> To date I havn't been furnished with the address.

Having said that.

I've enjoyed your's and Bill's comments on the AVSforum site.
It's been a good read...

<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251178&highlight=audioholics" target="_blank">AVSForum Page
</a> *

brian</font>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>gene :
<font color='#000000'>Response to Gene:

[ &nbsp;Please refrain from posting links to Jon Rischs cable receipts as we feel that his designs can do more harm than good. &nbsp; ]

This is too much Gene, way over the top, and without any basis in fact.

I would like to know exactly how ANY of my audio cable designs can be said to be bad, or worse than zip cord or OEM freebie interconnects. &nbsp;Specifics and details, not some unfounded and unsubstantiated feelings or bias.

[ &nbsp;IE. his psuedo twin feeder coax cable receipts where he shorts the center conductor to the adjacent ground shield of the other cable may reduce inductance, but at the extreme expense of adding cable capacitance and reducing the benefit of the shielding. &nbsp;In addition, the cable resistance of his recommended cable is almost 2x greater than standard 10AWG zip cord. ]

If this was meant to be such a detail or technical issue, then you are WAY off base. &nbsp; How about some factual numbers, with the data coming mostly from Fred Davis, so that no one can accuse me of doctoring the numbers, or of 'bad' measurements, etc.?

Typical 12 ga. zip cord, the universally recommended speaker cable, has about 0.00342 ohms of resistance per foot (round trip resistance), about 21 pF of capacitance per foot, and about 0.25 uH of inductance per foot. (Fred originally measured one of the best 12 ga. zips out there, one with closer spacing of the two conductors, so his measurements had the C slightly higher, and the L slightly lower. &nbsp;I am using typical 12 ga,. numbers here, which were provided by Fred on the news groups)

This leads to a measured 0.25 dB HF roll-off at 20 kHz, with a 10 foot length, and a 4 ohm load (This is my measurement, which has been double-checked, and verified by another engineer). &nbsp;

A 10 ga. zip cord would have lower resistance, but the inductance would climb as well, rolling off the HF even more.

My DIY Cross-Connected 89259 speaker cable design has 0.00443 ohms of resistance per foot (round trip), and has 49 pF of capacitance per foot, while only having 0.067 uH of inductance per foot. &nbsp;Note that the HF roll-off would be very small with this level of inductance.

For a point of reference that was not chosen to sound impressive, the resistance is only about 30% higher than for 12 ga. &nbsp;It is not exactly a good Resistor by comparison.

Now the capacitance is indeed about 2 1/3 times as much, but this amount of capacitance must be taken in context with what will cause problems with power amps, or in a system. &nbsp;I also note that the inductance is more than 3.7 times as low.

For instance, heavily braided cables, or the flat ribbon type cables that shoot for extremely low inductance, reach figures of 500-700 pF per foot, more than 10X the capacitance of my design. &nbsp;Yes, some of these cables, with unstable amps, and with longer runs, can reach a total level of capacitance that will &nbsp;
cause oscillations, intermittent instability, etc. &nbsp;This can usually be cured, by helping to stabilze the load the amps see, by placing a speaker cable Zobel at the speaker terminals, which consists of &nbsp;a 8 to 10 ohm non-inductive resistor and a 0.1 uF to 0.22 uF film capacitor. &nbsp;

What is in action here, is the total amount of capacitance causes an interaction with the amplifiers feedback loop, and pushes the phase margin in below the unity gain point. &nbsp;What occurs is a classic example of an oscillator circuit. &nbsp;Technically, this is an amplifier problem, and not totally a cable issue, BUT, in the real world, with folks pushing for maximal bandwidth in the electronics, and so-on, there are a fair number of power amplifiers that are not unconditionally stable, and thus will react badly to enough total capacitance on it's outputs.

How much is this amount of capacitance? &nbsp;Well, for some really unstable power amps or receivers, this can be around 3,000 to 5,000 pF into an 8 ohm nominal load. &nbsp; Most of these kinds of amps will not ever have a problem until the total C exceeds 10,000 pF. &nbsp;There are some exceptionally unstable amps, such as the Naim, which lose it at very low levels of capacitance, barely beyond the amount for a moderate length of zip cord. &nbsp;However, the Naim is an exception, and not the rule.

Note that at these levels of capacitance (3,000 - 5,000 pF), only around 10-12 feet of the braided or ribbon cables will be a potential problem

How many feet of my CC89259 speaker cable will it take to cause a typical worst case unstable amp to _maybe_ have problems? &nbsp;At 49 pF per foot, this would amount to more than 60 feet of cable to exceed 3,000 pF. &nbsp;To reach 10,000 pF, would require more than 200 feet of CC89259 speaker cable.

That is an awful long speaker cable run, and not to be recommended for use in a high performance system.

I want to note that I am on record as recommending the use of 12 ga. zip cords for all but SOTA or near SOTA HT system rear channels/speakers. &nbsp;The signal quality of these rear speaker signals just does not usually warrant anything better. &nbsp;

What about the shielding issue? &nbsp;This is a total red herring, as zip cord HAS no shielding. &nbsp;Most speaker cables do not have shielding, and unless you have severe RFI problems, it is best not to use shielded cables that have a non-active signal carrying shield. &nbsp;This would include foil or copper braid, or a combo over a twisted pair, that is grounded at one end only.

Strictly speaking, if we look at the overall impedance of the CC89259 vs. the zip cords, with respect to how the impedance impacts the amount of inherent noise pickup, the CC89259 has a lower impedance than the zip cords, and so, will have a slightly better situation in this regard. &nbsp;So it is not clear exactly how or why Gene is claiming that there is a shielding problem.
If anything, the CC89259 is better than typical zip cords in terms of external noise pickup.

None of this addresses the OTHER factors in speaker cable performance, and even if one wishes to totaly dismiss the materials involved with the CC89259, the bare copper (it is not uncommon for zip cords to have tinned copper conductors, for at least one of them), the teflon insulation vs. the typical zip cord PVC, and the smaller overall wires involved compared to the 12 ga. which means less skin effect related issues (whether or not you believe that skin effect is an issue for audio cables,or speaker cables, the truth is that the CC89259 will have a lot less than the 12 ga. zip). &nbsp;And of course, that bug-a-boo of AH, the dreaded strand jumping, will be less than for the 12 ga. &nbsp;Again, whether or not you have feelings about strand jumping being a relavant issue or not, there is going to be less of it in the CC89259.

In point of fact, there is absolutely no down side to the use of the CC89259, unless you manage to place yourself in the uneviable position of having a speaker cable run to the front speakers longer than 60 to 200 feet, WITH an unstable amp/receiver, and no parts stores in your universe to construct a simple Zobel network.

Not really any down side, the R L and C are all within acceptable parameters, and the materials and construction COULD offer the potential for superior performance, but certainly NOT worse performance.

One final note, if one actually REQUIRES a 10 ga. speaker cable, then it is a relatively simple matter to create a Star-Quad Cross-Connect 89259 speaker cable, which will then equal a 10 1/2 ga. cable. &nbsp;The capacitance will still remain bearable for most real world lengths of speaker cables of less than 30 to 100 feet, and the inductance wil go down even lower.

[ &nbsp;We have reviewed much of his website and found most of the content therein to be either incorrect, imcomplete, or very misleading. &nbsp; ]

Website. &nbsp;As in the whole website.

My website, at:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/index2.htm

includes DIY information on:
Acoustics treatments of all types, including bass traps, sound absorbing wall panels, room lens, diffusors, all of which have been widely held in high regard.

AC Power Filters, Isolation Transformers, and Balanced Power

Vibration control tweaks and projects
(All of the above acheived at extremely low cost relative to retail products)

Op-Amp upgrades

Sophisticated crossover circuits

A wealth of information on digital audio jitter

and of course, information on DIY audio cables, including an annotated bibliography on cable references.

Perhaps you do not like the cable technical content, and for whatever bizarre reason, do not like the DIY cable designs/projects, but to make such a blanket statement regarding the entire website just shows how personal and biased the comment is, and that it is not really about science, but about your POV vs. my POV, and where audo cables are concerned, you are either the right or the damned. &nbsp;Obviously, AH thinks themselves in the right, and I am damned. &nbsp;

Now I have pointed out errors in the AH cable articles in the past, and when I pointed them out, AH and Gene were very defensive and would not admit to any errors or incorrect content. &nbsp;But then, at the push of a key, the articles are quietly edited, with just a little notice at the very end of the article, that does not detail ALL the changes and corrections.

I note that in one particular article, the one titled:
&quot;Component Video Cables - The Definitive Guide&quot;
I pointed out around 16 errors or inconsistencies in the article, and that as of this date, about 12 of those points have been edited for correction, clarity or content. &nbsp;There are STILL some errors in the article, and some incorrect content, despite it having supposedly been proofed and 'peer-reviewed'. &nbsp;Some of these are the same as my original points, and there are some new ones that have crept in.

In essence, I was right about most (if you do not wish to believe all) of the problems with the article. &nbsp;And yet at the time, I was portrayed as an unscientific cable guru, and other such attempts at denigrating me. &nbsp;Now, the article has been edited along the very lines that I commented on. &nbsp;

I know my cables, my DIY designs are very good, and perform well above typical zip cords or OEM freebie interconnects, yet AH/Gene want to portry me as some sort of evil misleading cable guru that is doing harm to the hobby of audio.

Personally, I think that people who try to discourage folks from trying high performance audio cables for themselves are the ones who are doing harm, and are hurting the hobby.

Finally, let me say that there are some pretty far-out claims made by some audio cable vendors, most of it is marketing excess, some little of it does appear to be incoherent BS.

None of that means that ALL cable vendors are selling snake-oil, or are trying to bilk the consumer, the impression that AH would seem to be trying to make. &nbsp; I believe that most of the smaller audio aftermarket cable companies ae genuinely trying to bring &nbsp;their own honest idea of what is sonically the best to the table, and provide it to the audiophile/music lover.

AH paints with much too broad a brush, including my website, and my cable information. &nbsp;The proof of my DIY designs is in the listening, and so far, not one person has ever regreted building these DIY designs. &nbsp; This is with thousands of folks having built the speaker cables, and thousands more having built the DIY interconnects.

Jon Risch</font>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Guest : <font color='#000000'>I also wouldn't recommend using coax cables as speaker cables. &nbsp;The DC resistance is too high and the pair to pair capacitance would be over 50pF/ft resulting in a difficult load to many amplifiers if cable lengths are reasonably long, say over 50ft. &nbsp;I really think audio people tend to play down the importance of a cable with low capacitance just to reduce inductance. &nbsp;I wouldn't give amp companies, especially tube amps, too much benefit of a doubt regarding their margin of stability they design into their products. &nbsp;

BTW, this topic was posted over at avsforum by one of your members, not sure why, but I also addressed it there as well.

Also, from a cosmetics standpoint, I would rather have something that looks nicer :)

AVSForum Page (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=251178&highlight=audioholics)</font>
<font color='#000000'>See my reply to Gene re your points.

The coax is not too high in resistance, as shown in the reply.

As for capacitance, I cover that too, and I think it would be hard to argue that 50 or 60 feet of zip cord is not going to sound too great either, that such a long run will not be optimal for a variety of reasons.

I note that at 50 feet, the 12 ga. will now be down about 1.3 dB, and the CC89259 would only be down about .35 dB at 20 kHz into a 4 ohm load.

Finally, tube amps, unless of the transformerless variety, usually have very good feedback margins, and can tolerate a capacitive load better than most SS amps. &nbsp;Note that there ARE exceptions, but in general, the tube amps handle the cap load pretty well.

Now if one were totally anal about speaker cable capacitance, then there is an easy solution:

stock Belden 8213

At the round trip equivalent resistance to 12 ga. zip, and a capacitance at the SAME level, but with an inductance much lower, this particular coax also has several other things going for it:
all bare copper
foamed PE insulation
no assembly required.

Well, you do have to comb out the braid to attach some spades or whatever termination.

If you use the inexpensive gold-plated RS spades at $5 for a set of 8, then the cost of this coax with terminations is CHEAPER than the DIY zip cord project by Dan Banquer here at AH. &nbsp;Even if you have to buy a RS crimper tool!

See:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/7637.html
for more details on simple coax cable used for speaker cables. &nbsp;Please note that not any old RG XX will do, see:
The skinny on RG-6 coaxial cables:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/25155.html

use of the recommended part numbers will result in superior performance.

I note that this type of approach to speaker cables, is inherently self-shielding as long as the outer braid is connected to the amp ground terminal.

Jon Risch</font>

[Bprest0n]

<font color='#000000'>Jon;

You must deliberately post looooooooooong replies so that people would get so sick of reading your dribble that they wont even respond. &nbsp;I suspect your loss figures of 12AWG zip cord are grossly exaggerated. &nbsp;I am looking forward to Gene's reply assuming he will even bother &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'></font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Jon;

Your implications are correct. *I should not have discouraged people from your cable receipt designs, even if most of your claims about cables are either wrong, misapplied or overstated. *I apologize for being abrupt and making a blanket statement about your website. *I must have been in a bad mood that day <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('>

My comments about your website only applied to your cable theory, not the other aspects of your website, which I did not thoroughly review. *A majority of your claims about cables (IE. distortion, diode rectification, analysis) are either incorrect, unsubstantiated, or go against credible engineering and proven sciences. *You have been asked by countless people, including myself to provide proof on your claims, yet you always seem to fall short and never correct or update your website, to my knowledge, when proven wrong.*

Here is a quick example that will prove my point.

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum....10 (http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@224.rOFRaDzGgy8.0@.ef9a051/10)

As for all of your points in your last post, I have neither the time nor desire to debate them with you. *I will however briefly address the most prominent ones. *

In the past you have suggested criticism / corrections to Steve’s Component Video Cable article. *But you did so in a mostly non diplomatic way, by attacking his article, without our knowledge or consent on other audio message boards, namely Audioreview and Audioasylum. *You also managed to pick upon his article when it was still in its draft state and while it was only posted for a day or so. *For someone who doesn’t like Audioholics.com, you sure manage to stay on top of knowing what is on our site, apparently on a daily basis. *Your relevant suggestions for correction were implemented and documented in the last page footer of the article you mentioned. *We even thanked you for your efforts in the last forum post you made at:

http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin....n+risch (http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=4;t=225;hl=jon+risch)


I have prepared a short analysis of your cable design vs standard zip cord. *As you will see, your measurements and conclusions are mostly incorrect, or overstated against zip cord and for your cross coax design. *In addition, I never claimed standard Zip Cord should be shielded. *I simply stated that your cable design eliminated the benefit of the shield which was designed into the cable you are using for a specific application.


Please review at:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtip....-p1.htm (http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/CrossCoax_vs_ZipCord-p1.htm)

Your cable design is actually a decent design, comparible, but not &quot;better&quot; than Zip Cord.

Your comments about rear channel speakers just not being important enough to warrant &quot;exotic&quot; cables is both wrong and arrogant. What does this say for audiophiles who have embraced high resolution music formats such as DVD-Audio, SACD, and even DTS 96/24? *These formats specifically recommend equally designed loudspeakers for ALL channels.

In addition, as cable length increases, its even more imperative to utilize a cable with low R,L,C values to minimize losses at the speakers. Thus rear speakers usually have the longest cable runs and it makes more sense to use equal, if not even better cables, if possible, for this application.

As always, if you wish to discuss cable designs or specifications in a friendly and courteous manner, I would be happy to debate you privately via email. &nbsp;Perhaps we can both benefit from the learning experience and gain knowledge or insight previously not realized. &nbsp;Again, should you desire to send us samples of your products, we would happily include them in our up and coming cable comparison articles.

[corrected link address for Audioreview]



<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('></font>

<font color='#000000'>Gene;

A very nicely written article that was both well balanced and objective. &nbsp;I suspect Jon's cables are better than I originally thought when I first looked at them, and your article has shown me that. &nbsp;However, your article also showed me that Zip Cord is also better than I originally suspected. &nbsp;a very nice read and I look forward to your up and coming speaker cable face off comparison &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

<font color='#000000'>
2nd Reply To Gene:

[ &nbsp;I should not have discouraged people from your cable receipt designs, even if most of your claims about cables are either wrong, misapplied or overstated. &nbsp;]

While I am not normally that anal about mispellings or typos, it would be a cable recipe, not receipt. &nbsp;

As for most of my claims about cables being wrong, misapplied or overstated, I think that this is still in the realm of an opinion, and not any kind of a 'fact'.

I think that AH has been shown to be far from perfect, less than totally correct in their first 'drafts', and less than thorough in their statements in various articles so far. &nbsp;

RE the Audio Review forum link, I think that site speaks for itself, it is a cable naysayer haven, and their reception to my DIY designs is not exactly going to be a warm welcome. &nbsp;Not proof of anything, including jneutron/John Escallier's nit-picking post that you link to.

[ &nbsp;You also managed to pick upon his article when it was still in its draft state and while it was only posted for a day or so. &nbsp; ]

Excuse me? &nbsp;You placed a draft article on your website, looking for all the world like a final write-up (how is anyone to know when your articles are 'drafts' or the 'final''? ) and the cable naysayers all pronounced it wonderful, and it was defended by you. &nbsp;I was specifically taken to task over the content, and my criticism. &nbsp;I originally critiqued and responded to the article, because of the bizarre and inconsistent way that audio cable issues kept creeping into what was suposed to be &quot;The Definitive Guide&quot; to Component Video Cables. &nbsp; I also objected to the errors and unjustified conclusions in the original 'draft' article.

[ &nbsp;I have prepared a short analysis of your cable design vs standard zip cord. &nbsp;As you will see, your measurements and conclusions are mostly incorrect, or overstated against zip cord and for your cross coax design. &nbsp; ]

I read your analysis, and will comment upon it in a separate reply, but I still think that the tone and comments clearly show a bias and a slant that unduly glorifies 12 ga zip cord. &nbsp; Suffice it to say, that if my measurements, and those of Fred Davis, and others as well, are not taken to be incorrect, then much of what I mention is then not incorrect or 'overstated' as you put it.

I think the most telling &nbsp;point, is that over the years, the folks who would say that audio cables do not have a sonic difference, always insist on comparing equivalent gauge cables when dealing with speaker cables, and that to take 13 1/2 ga. cable, to task because it has a higher DCR than 12 ga. cable is kind of trivial and petty. &nbsp;The other aspects are then glossed over.

[ &nbsp;In addition, I never claimed standard Zip Cord should be shielded. &nbsp;I simply stated that your cable design eliminated the benefit of the shield which was designed into the cable you are using for a specific application. &nbsp;]

Isn't this a red herring then? &nbsp;Why mention that the CC89259 design is not as shielded as a single coax, when zip cord is not shielded at all? &nbsp;What is the relevance? &nbsp;Do I make any special claims for the CC89259 being shielded, other than in my last reply to point out that it would have a lower overall impedance than zip cord, and therefore be less prone to pick-up outside interference than zip cords?

I think this is a good example of the attempt to point out nonexistent 'flaws' in the CC89259, despite a total lack of relevance.

[ &nbsp;Your comments about rear channel speakers just not being important enough to warrant &quot;exotic&quot; cables is both wrong and arrogant. What does this say for audiophiles who have embraced high resolution music formats such as DVD-Audio, SACD, and even DTS 96/24? &nbsp;]

I said for HT. &nbsp;This does not apply to true broadband multi-channel music sources such as DVD-A or SACD. &nbsp; I DO NOT consider just a Home Theater oriented system to be equivalent to these in terms of the rear channel needs.

[ &nbsp;Again, should you desire to send us samples of your products, we would happily include them in our up and coming cable comparison articles. &nbsp;]

I think there is a distinctly wrong impression about the CC89259 or my other DIY cable designs. &nbsp;I do not sell cables. &nbsp;I do not sell cable kits, nor do I make up free samples for any audio reviewers, since the costs would have to come out of my own pocket. &nbsp;

In point of fact, if I WERE selling audio cables, I would not send them to be reviewed at AH, due to the very lop-sided POV about cables that exists. &nbsp;I think that most cable vendors would probably feel the same way, and not want to send review samples to a site which has gone out of it's way to repeatedly try to associate aftermarket cable vendors and manufacturer's with con men and snake-oil salesmen.

Jon Risch</font>

[Clint DeBoer]

<font color='#000000'>Nice article. I think everyone will be better off having read it... hopefully it is well received in the manner it was written.</font>

[Dan Banquer]

<font color='#000000'>I have some questions here. Jon Risch states that a Zobel Filter at the speaker terminal will help to nullify speaker cable capacitance. From my experience Zobel filters are for inductive loads. The other question I have is why even bother with this at all. Competently designed amps already have a Zobel filter at the output. To put an additional Zobel filter at the the speaker terminals in addition to highly capacitive cable just doesn't make much practical sense. Or to rephrase that, how many Zobel filters should you really need. (want?)
The article that Gene wrote makes perfect sense; the tradeoff for very low inductance is higher capacitance. Sounds pretty normal to me. What I think Jon needs to recognize here is that the old cliche still applies. &quot;There is no free lunch.&quot; However; it does appear that capacitive cables are more in vogue this month; I suppose next month that will change.</font>

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Dan Banquer : <font color='#000000'>I have some questions here. Jon Risch states that a Zobel Filter at the speaker terminal will help to nullify speaker cable capacitance. From my experience Zobel filters are for inductive loads. The other question I have is why even bother with this at all. Competently designed amps already have a Zobel filter at the output. To put an additional Zobel filter at the the speaker terminals in addition to highly capacitive cable just doesn't make much practical sense. Or to rephrase that, how many Zobel filters should you really need. (want?)
The article that Gene wrote makes perfect sense; the tradeoff for very low inductance is higher capacitance. Sounds pretty normal to me. What I think Jon needs to recognize here is that the old cliche still applies. &quot;There is no free lunch.&quot; However; it does appear that capacitive cables are more in vogue this month; I suppose next month that will change.</font>
<font color='#000000'>RE the Zobel filter use.

The sheer and primarily raw capacitance of the speaker cable is what causes the problems with the less than unconditionally stable power amps. &nbsp;An RC termination at the far end provides a controlled amount of damped C, usually larger than the cable C. &nbsp;This dominates what the amp sees, and since it is damped with the R, &nbsp;the phase shift the amp sees is a controlled amount &nbsp;that will no longer send it over the edge. &nbsp;Usually.

It needs to be at the far end, to better control any extreme HF energy that might be traversing the cable multiple times, due to the formation of a resonant circuit with the amp output.

However, as noted, the use of a Zobel is not necessary with the CC89259, the sheer level of capacitance is just not there with sane lengths of speaker cable.

[ &nbsp;Competently designed amps already have a Zobel filter at the output. &nbsp;]

True. &nbsp;Not all amps are &quot;competently designed&quot;. &nbsp;Not all power amps are unconditionally stable. &nbsp;Some even use steel wires to transfer the signals. &nbsp; Yeech!

[ &nbsp;...the tradeoff for very low inductance is higher capacitance. Sounds pretty normal to me. What I think Jon needs to recognize here is that the old cliche still applies. &quot;There is no free lunch.&quot; &nbsp; ]

Sometimes you can get a reduced price for the lunch, and this is exactly what my design is all about. &nbsp;If you look at the ratio of capacitance to inductance, you would see that in order to lower the inductance as much as they do, the braided and flat ribbon sandwhich cables reach a VERY high amount of capacitance, as noted earlier, on the order of 500-700 pF per foot. &nbsp;This while achieving an inductance on the order of 0.040 uH per foot or slightly less.

My design on the other hand, reaches down almost as low in inductance, at 0.067 uH per foot, and at about 1/10th the capacitance, or 49 pF per foot. &nbsp;I think that is a worthwhile acheivement.

Again, none of the basic LCR parameters tell the whole story, and this is where the CC89259 cable shines with FEP teflon insulation, and all bare copper.

Jon Risch</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Yes Jon, some of our articles have had errors in them that were later corrected by either feedback via email or by rescanning the articles after they were posted. &nbsp;Only you to date have provided feedback in a most tactless manner. &nbsp;You seem to go out of your way to find errors in our articles or to “expose” their problems. &nbsp;Sometimes it is difficult to proof out all of the errors in articles, and we are not the only website or audio publication that has this problem. &nbsp;Jon, when you realize that Audioholics.com is about much more than mere cables you will understand the amount of work running a website like this is. &nbsp;All of us, myself included, do this in our spare time and gain little or nothing out of it other than bringing some honesty and sanity to this field, with the occasional chance to review and test new products.

FYI, we have had many cable vendors review our articles, found them to their liking, and have sent us cable samples to review. &nbsp;I will be writing about this shortly. &nbsp;

The majority of your cable theory is severely flawed and/or unproven. &nbsp;

You cannot prove:
diode rectification
wire distortion
dielectric of speaker cables altering sound
measurable benefits of bi-wiring
and much more.

It is interesting to note that many of your cable theories coincide with a company named Audioquest. &nbsp;We provided them a chance to prove their claims and they went blank. &nbsp;

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.audioholics.com/FAQs/Audioquest.html

Most of what is in this article applies to the theories on your website. &nbsp;We find this both appalling and a disservice to the audio community. &nbsp;

Just like Audioasylum has a no DBT rule in cable forums (how convenient), perhaps Audioholics.com should evoke a no cable BS rule. &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':;):'>

When anyone makes unsubstantiated and/or un-provable claims about cables we thrash them. &nbsp;What do you guys think?</font>

[Eric]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When anyone makes unsubstantiated and/or un-provable claims about cables we thrash them. *What do you guys think?
</td></tr></table>

I wouldn’t say you “trash them” but rather challenge their claims using engineering. Keep up the great work! *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

<font color='#000000'>&quot;&quot;RE the Audio Review forum link, I think that site speaks for itself, it is a cable naysayer haven, and their reception to my DIY designs is not exactly going to be a warm welcome. &nbsp;Not proof of anything, including jneutron/John Escallier's nit-picking post that you link to.&quot;&quot;

Well, at least you spelled my name right:-)

My post is not nitpicking...I have placed there a scientifically consistent, to the best of my knowledge (and my peers at work) taking apart of what I consider to be very unscientific information..

I am not a naysayer, not a yaysayer, any of that garbage..

What I have provided is science....and methodology..

I point out the items on you site that do not fall into that category...

I also invite technical debate on any of the points I've made, as that has always been my intent..



Cheers, John</font>

[Dan Banquer]

<font color='#000000'>Well Jon R, you have proposed a cable answer to improperly designed amps. Why not get to the root of the problem and fix the amp, and not add more zobel filters, along with more reactive cable? Why add more reactance in front of a loudspeaker crossover? This makes absolutely no sense.
As far as my use of RG 174 for line level cable internal to the equipment, Yeech is not exactly a *precise adjective. You have not proven that there is anything wrong with with RG174. You have not documented any possible audio problem, and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. So I will view your response of Yeech as simply your personal opinion, because you lack any credible evidence to do otherwise.</font>

[Jon Risch]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Dan Banquer : <font color='#000000'>Well Jon R, you have proposed a cable answer to improperly designed amps. Why not get to the root of the problem and fix the amp, and not add more zobel filters, along with more reactive cable? Why add more reactance in front of a loudspeaker crossover? This makes absolutely no sense.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Most people have to treat the amp as a black box, they can not go in and fix it, or re-design the circuit or layout.

If they want to use low Z cables, they have to live with the cards they have been dealt, as most folks are not going to run out and buy a &quot;properly designed amp&quot;.

So using a Zobel at the speaker, in order to use the cables they want to, is not such a strange thing after all.

I note that Goertz is now offering a built-on Zobel for their ribbon sandwich cables at no charge upon customer request.

Jon Risch</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Jon;

Zobels are effective at making high inductive loads look resistive. &nbsp;Lets say for example you have a tweeter that impedance increases without bounds with frequency, this is where a zobel will help reduce this problem. &nbsp;As far as I know, the most effective way to prevent amplifier oscillations due to highly capacitive loads is to provide a series resistance or inductance, or both before the load. &nbsp;I suspect adding a zobel after the speaker cable does not provide effective isolation for the amplifier from the capacitive load. &nbsp;I am working on this and will hopefully have something on paper soon.

IF you have any measurments for these high capacitive cables, they would be helpful.</font>

[rode]

<font color='#000000'>Gene is quite right here. A &quot;far-end&quot; zobel has little or no effect on the amplifier with cables of typical lengths, since the reflections caused by the impedance mismatch are at frequencies well outside the amplifier's bandwidth. Should the amp's response still be above unity gain at around 20MHz or greater (unusual but possible), then a RC zobel at the speaker end is recommended. The resistive component should be equal to the cable's characteristic impedance - i.e. not the typical 100nF in series with 10 ohms (unless cable Zo is, in fact, 10 ohms).

A speaker end (far end) zobel will be useful to terminate the cable in areas with high RF interference, and is (IMO) a good idea - just don't expect it to have any effect on amplifier stability with most amps.

Amplifier-end zobels (series RL types) are essential to isolate the amplifier from very high capacitance cables to maintain a satisfactory phase margin. Where the amplifier is not fitted with an RL zobel (usually ~ 800nH || 10 ohms or so), then this should be supplied with the cable.

Naturally, the addition of an inductance to make the amp stable with the ultra low inductance cable is somewhat counter-productive, but strangely this doesn't seem to bother your run-of-the-mill snake oil vendor &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

I have done some initial simulation work on this topic, and will be working with Gene to produce the final article. There is a lot more to this than any snake-oil vendor tells us in the colour glossies - much more. &nbsp;(Oops - I meant to say &quot;cable&quot; - never mind, same difference.)

Naturally, this entire debate can be rendered obsolete by simply using powered loudspeakers, with a triamped system using electronic crossovers and separate amplifiers either built into a plinth or even in the speaker box itself.

Now that is the sensible way to do it, and eventually all loudspeakers will be made that way. It is already common with near-field studio monitors and small PA systems, and has also been done with hi-fi (with great success, I might add).

Cheers, &nbsp; &nbsp;Rod</font>

[Jon Risch]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>rode : <font color='#000000'>Gene is quite right here. A &quot;far-end&quot; zobel has little or no effect on the amplifier with cables of typical lengths, since the reflections caused by the impedance mismatch are at frequencies well outside the amplifier's bandwidth. Should the amp's response still be above unity gain at around 20MHz or greater (unusual but possible), then a RC zobel at the speaker end is recommended. The resistive component should be equal to the cable's characteristic impedance - i.e. not the typical 100nF in series with 10 ohms (unless cable Zo is, in fact, 10 ohms).


Amplifier-end zobels (series RL types) are essential to isolate the amplifier from very high capacitance cables to maintain a satisfactory phase margin. Where the amplifier is not fitted with an RL zobel (usually ~ 800nH || 10 ohms or so), then this should be supplied with the cable.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Reply to Gene and Rod:

With regard to speaker cable far end ZObel networks, I am not talking about theory here, this is real world experience, and it works. &nbsp;

In a few desperate instances, some folks have placed a series resistance in line to help stabilize an amp, but this is obviously a last resort, and is most often used with electrostatic speakers, which are already a difficult load unto themselves.

As to why the far end Zobel works, this should be obvious to Rod. &nbsp;The typical speaker cable 'Zobel' values of 0.22 uF and 8-10 ohms tends to swamp out the cable C, which is usually on the order of from 0.01 uF to .003 uF to reach instability. &nbsp;The R provides a way to keep this amount of C from pushing the amp over the edge.
In technical terms, it keeps the amp phase margin from exceeding the oscillation threshold before unity gain is reached.

RE the so-called amp zobel being an RL, I have never heard this refered to in this manner, a Zobel network has always been an RC network, in so far as I am aware. &nbsp;I have heard the series RL &nbsp;network referred to as an isolation network, but never a zobel.

Is this just your own use of the term in this manner, or is there any sort of readily cited professional use of the term Zobel for a series RL? &nbsp;

Strictly speaking, I am not sure that the typical speaker cable RC network actually qualifies as a true Zobel either, but at least it has the same nominal location and circuit as a Zobel, and so can be excused as being referred to by many as a Zobel network.

Jon Risch</font>

[Bprest0n]

<font color='#000000'>Jon;

I think I would agree with some of what you said if the &quot;R&quot; was in series with the load, not in shunt. *Perhaps Audioholics could get some amplifier vendors to comment here. *BTW, the discussions here lately have given me little or no desire to participate in other forum venues. *Good stuff.

All of you guys have been debating with a high degree of professionalism that in my experience has been unmatched by other audio forum discussions.</font>

[rode]

<font color='#000000'>Jon,
Somewhere along the line, theory and practice should find common ground. If this does not happen, then one disipline or the other is obviously at fault. &nbsp;In the case of a &quot;far-end&quot; zobel, it can have a profound effect on the signal at the speaker end, but will (usually) have a minor effect as regards the phase margin of the amplifier.

Where an inductor is used at the amp output, the effects are non-existent to the amplifier, since the cable is decoupled from the amp by the inductance at those frequencies.

You are right about the inductor/resistor BTW - it is not (strictly speaking) a &quot;zobel network&quot;, so I suppose I had better stop referring to it as such to avoid any confusion <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

In the various simulations I have done so far, using a &quot;lossy&quot; transmission line (with R, L and C), the optimum value of the far end zobel resistance is equal to the line impedance. Since it is a rare speaker cable that has a characteristic impedance of 10 ohms, then that value is clearly not optimum as a &quot;generic&quot; fix. Although it reduces the amplitude of the primary reflection, it does not (and cannot) eliminate it. Instead, it just moves the peak somewhere else (typically to a much lower frequency)

Transmission line theory (and practice) indicates that this should be the case - a mismatch will always cause reflections - only a perfectly matched transmission line is free of all reflected energy (standing waves).

Having looked at this more closely than before, I feel that there is good reason to use a far-end zobel, matched to the line impedance for RF. Doing so will make the speaker lead less likely to act as an antenna for stray RF fields, and minimising standing waves will ensure that a very wide bandwidth amp (without a series inductor) will not be affected. How many such amps are available? I honestly don't know, but for a 3 metre (10') cable, (Zo of 43 ohms) the first major reflection appears at around 5MHz - this is generally well outside the danger zone for most amps.

Predictably, longer cables will lower the frequency, but again, the use of 100nF and 10 ohms is ill advised unless the Zo of the cable is 10 ohms. Matching networks should be matching networks, not &quot;different mismatching&quot; networks.

I am still gathering data on the characteristic impedance (and other parameters) for a selection of cables for my simulations, and hope to be able to publish some results shortly.</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I am not normally that anal about mispellings or typos, it would be a cable recipe, not receipt.</td></tr></table>

While I am not normally that anal about those who erroneously correct mispellings or typos, receipt is a synonym of recipe, Jon.

And so you don't think I came over here just to pick on you, the real reason I came here is to express my concern over the curious phenomenon of unregistered users popping up like clockwork over on Audio Asylum within days or less of an Audioholics article being published to tell everyone about the article.

If there is any sockpuppeting going on on the part of anyone associated with Audioholics, knock it off. This whole thing's already beginning to get just as childish as the Stereophile/TAS rivalry.

se</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RE the so-called amp zobel being an RL, I have never heard this refered to in this manner, a Zobel network has always been an RC network, in so far as I am aware. *I have heard the series RL *network referred to as an isolation network, but never a zobel.

Is this just your own use of the term in this manner, or is there any sort of readily cited professional use of the term Zobel for a series RL?</td></tr></table>

Jon, a Zobel network is simply an impedance compensation network, intended to present a resistive load to the source by way of neutralizing the reactance causing the load's impedance to change with respect to frequency. Whether you use an RC network or an RL network depends on what you're compensating for. If you're compensating for inductance, you use an RC network. If you're compensating for capacitance, you use an LC network.

See Zobel, OJ, &quot;Distortion Correction in Electrical Circuits with Constant-Resistance Networks,&quot; Bell Systems Technical Journal, July 1982, p. 438.

That reference is also cited in the following article that's more readily accessible:

Zobel network tames reactive loads (http://www.e-insite.net/ednmag/archives/1995/122195/26di3.htm)

You really make it hard not to seem like you're being singled out to be picked on, Jon.

se</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Steve;

Welcome to our forums.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there is any sockpuppeting going on on the part of anyone associated with Audioholics, knock it off. This whole thing's already beginning to get just as childish as the Stereophile/TAS rivalry.</td></tr></table>

While I appreciate your participation on these forums, it will not be welcomed if you continue to make such accusations.
Your accusations are both incorrect and unwarranted. *While I can't speak for all of our forum members, I can assure you that our staff have better things to do then sit at AA promoting our articles. * *What would be the gain? *(Especially since the majority of AA members don’t agree with our viewpoints) *

May I suggest that you ask the AA moderators to ban the IP address violators. *If certain Audioholics forum members are in fact doing as you say, then please report it to us and we will warn them. &nbsp;IF you send us the IP addresses, we can verify if any of the AH forum members have similar addresses.

Thank you for understanding and your very informative second post with accompanying link.</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I appreciate your participation on these forums, it will not be welcomed if you continue to make such accusations.</td></tr></table>

Perhaps you missed the word &quot;if&quot; which began my statement that you quoted. It's a little word I know and sometimes easily overlooked but I made sure to put it there so as to make clear that I was making no accusation.

se</font>

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Point well taken Steve. &nbsp;I apologize if my response came off rather strong. &nbsp;Unlike many other audio forums, we don't tolerate flame wars and/or personal attacks against each other or other websites,companies, etc. &nbsp;I was attempting to eliminate that from starting with my original post. &nbsp;However, I can see you are a reasonable person. &nbsp;Again thanks for your useful contributions. &nbsp;Rod and I are currently working on an article about Zobel terminations that should prove a most interesting read to those who are interested in this topic.</font>

<font color='#000000'>No apologies necessary. I can come off rather strong myself. Just ask Jon. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

se</font>

[rode]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Guest : Jon, a Zobel network is simply an impedance compensation network, intended to present a resistive load to the source by way of neutralizing the reactance causing the load's impedance to change with respect to frequency. Whether you use an RC network or an RL network depends on what you're compensating for. If you're compensating for inductance, you use an RC network. If you're compensating for capacitance, you use an LC network.
Hi Steve,
I saw the reference you indicated in your post, but try as I may, could not find any reference anywhere to a series RL network being referred to as a Zobel. Parallel, yes, but not series.

Technically (as an impedance compensation network), the term is probably appropriate, but common usage shall prevail, and I have determined to refrain from calling it a Zobel.

While I must admit that Jon and I rarely see eye-to-eye, to prevent any confusion it is probably best referred to as an &quot;isolation network&quot; or similar as he suggested.</font>

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I saw the reference you indicated in your post, but try as I may, could not find any reference anywhere to a series RL network being referred to as a Zobel. Parallel, yes, but not series.</td></tr></table>

Well I guess the acid test will be Zobel's article. I'll see if I can round up a copy.

se</font>