Audio Art SC-5 Loudspeaker Cables

Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
@Johnny2Bad- you wrote "Although it's common to hear or read that no one has done any comprehensive tests of loudspeaker cable..." but that's very far from the truth. As long as test equipment has been in existence and cabling has been used for carrying some kind of electrical signal, cables have been tested for their physical and electrical characteristics by scientists and engineers. Even as far back as the telegraph, they needed to find out if a cable would work over the distances they needed to cover, if it would be affected by external sources like lightning, if amplitude would be affected by changes in frequency, static buildup, etc. Until someone got the idea that they could make a ton of money by selling something that NOBODY thought they needed before that time, it wasn't a big deal- we used calculations or charts to see if a particular gauge would be adequate for the load, power output and distance. Even recording studios did this and if you think anyone here has better equipment than studios owned by the BBC, Thorn/EMI and other top-notch studios, guess again.

You can test cables all you want but if you're not comparing the input signal with what comes out of the speakers, it's really not much of a useful test. If you WANT to see a specific change, you'll need to ask yourself- "Does this happen with ALL of the music, or only specific pieces?" and "Is this removing anything that I should be hearing?".

You can tilt at windmills all you want, but unless you can be certain of the cable being used without seeing it, mental bias exists and if affecting EVERYTHING you hear when you use your system.

Have you ever tried thinking "This is gonna sound great!" before using cables of unknown origin or construction? I doubt it.
I am mystified by your post, where you quote part of a sentence of mine, and further state that "... that's [sic] very far from the truth".

How does that substantially differ from the remainder of the same sentence " ... the truth is there are such explorations, and it's useful for anyone interested to check them out." ?

Naturally I would agree with the remainder of your post, although on a website dedicated to audio reproduction and in a forum dedicated to exploring issues related to audio reproduction, in a post in a sub-forum dedicated to audio reviews, I assumed readers would infer that I was referring to tests of various cable examples intended to be used in an audio reproduction system and their measurements specifically relevant to that application, rather than the testing of cable in general and in all applications, and even the history of cable testing.

Regards, thanks for your post.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I am mystified by your post, where you quote part of a sentence of mine, and further state that "... that's [sic] very far from the truth".

How does that substantially differ from the remainder of the same sentence " ... the truth is there are such explorations, and it's useful for anyone interested to check them out." ?

Naturally I would agree with the remainder of your post, although on a website dedicated to audio reproduction and in a forum dedicated to exploring issues related to audio reproduction, in a post in a sub-forum dedicated to audio reviews, I assumed readers would infer that I was referring to tests of various cable examples intended to be used in an audio reproduction system and their measurements specifically relevant to that application, rather than the testing of cable in general and in all applications, and even the history of cable testing.

Regards, thanks for your post.
I was disagreeing with your comment that no comprehensive testing has been done, so I disagreed.

Nothing in "but that's very far from the truth" was misspelled. I meant 'but that is very far....', so I used a contraction.

The principals and results of the tests conducted long ago still apply to what we deal with in audio/video- I don't know how telegraphy and AV could be considered different WRT cable characteristics.

Also, if you assume correct inferences, I think it's far more likely that the assumption will be incorrect.

Cheers
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Misspelled?

[sic] (latin) means "thus was it written"; it does not mean "spelled wrong".

The reason it's there is because "that's" doesn't agree with what precedes it in the sentence. These things happen when you quote text. Either I use the latin or I rewrite your words; for example I could alternately have written it as:

I am mystified by your post, where you quote part of a sentence of mine, and further state that "... [my assertion is] very far from the truth".

One or the other. Not changing another's words is the preferred solution, so I chose [sic]

" ... I was disagreeing with your comment that no comprehensive testing has been done, so I disagreed. ..."

But I did not state that no comprehensive testing has been done. I said it had been done, (" ... the truth is there are such explorations, ...").

I can't believe I'm quoting this a second time. I won't be doing it a third.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Misspelled?

[sic] (latin) means "thus was it written"; it does not mean "spelled wrong".

The reason it's there is because "that's" doesn't agree with what precedes it in the sentence. These things happen when you quote text. Either I use the latin or I rewrite your words; for example I could alternately have written it as:

I am mystified by your post, where you quote part of a sentence of mine, and further state that "... [my assertion is] very far from the truth".

One or the other. Not changing another's words is the preferred solution, so I chose [sic]

" ... I was disagreeing with your comment that no comprehensive testing has been done, so I disagreed. ..."

But I did not state that no comprehensive testing has been done. I said it had been done, (" ... the truth is there are such explorations, ...").

I can't believe I'm quoting this a second time. I won't be doing it a third.
That's special.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Do you prefer PVC dielectric to the alternatives?
Another "Funny Wire Thread". When Peter walker said years ago at the start of this nonsense, Wire is Bloody Wire mate!" He was right then and right now.

None of those inductance or capacitance figures some close to having any nth impact on the audio band.

I don't care what the dielectric is, as long as it is an adequate insulator. The capacitance of any insulator in wire I'm familiar with just fades into insignificance.

Basically the only function of speaker wire is that it adequately insulate the positive and negative for no current leakage and that the total resistance is sufficiently low that the the impedance curve of the speaker does not drive the frequency response. That is all. The rest is bogus useless hot air.

The fact is you were fleeced when you bought those cables.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Another "Funny Wire Thread". When Peter walker said years ago at the start of this nonsense, Wire is Bloody Wire mate!" He was right then and right now.

None of those inductance or capacitance figures some close to having any nth impact on the audio band.

I don't care what the dielectric is, as long as it is an adequate insulator. The capacitance of any insulator in wire I'm familiar with just fades into insignificance.

Basically the only function of speaker wire is that it adequately insulate the positive and negative for no current leakage and that the total resistance is sufficiently low that the the impedance curve of the speaker does not drive the frequency response. That is all. The rest is bogus useless hot air.

The fact is you were fleeced when you bought those cables.
Someone was asked "What is the best cable?" and they answered "One that reaches from one piece to the other". I always liked that one.
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Who said I bought them?

And it's not a "fact" I was fleeced, it's an opinion. I know women who pay twice as much as the MSRP of this particular loudspeaker cable for a pair of jeans and they can afford them less than I can.

" ... None of those inductance or capacitance figures some close to having any nth impact on the audio band. ..."

Measurements (from Parent Post):
Capacitance (+ to +):
100; 120; 1KHz **
10 KHz 186.6 uF
100 KHz 1896.8 uF

+ to (-), non-continuous (not connected at opposite + and (-) end)
100 Hz 57 pF
120 Hz 57 pF
1 KHz 57.2 pF
10 KHz 56.59 pF
100 KHz 55.61 pF

Oscilliscope Screen Grab for Modulus-86 Power Amplifier module

Note: Nothing special here, this is not a cherry-picked example, I just happened to have viewed a post yesterday with the capacitance effect on a DIY Chip Amp with excellent published and measured specifications that I was considering building for my next project (I've built many DIY amplifiers and preamplifiers; pretty much have one on the go at any point in time). To see any capacitance vs frequency specification at all is very rare for an amplifier; it's probably only because this is a DIY implementation that it's here at all.



Note the amplifier is beginning to show capacitative instability at a level of 100 nanofarads and a frequency of 10 KHz, within the human hearing threshold; the square waves at lower capacitance loads were near perfect. There are no published response square waves between this one and the next, which is at 100 KHz, which I'm not citing, but if anyone cares, yes, more severe ringing than at 10 KHz.

186.6 uF (5 feet of this cable at 10 KHz) = 186,600 nF
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
Who said I bought them?
Umm...

Taking advantage of some Black Friday sales events, I bought some loudspeaker cables from a supplier with a good reputation as a kind of "sanity check" to use as part of a good workflow when building cable assemblies.

Audio Art CC5 which are the Centre Channel variant (sold each vs per pair) of their SC5 Spade/Spade loudspeaker cable. The reason I bought 2 Centre Channel cables is they are available @ 5' lengths versus 6' for the SC5 2-channel version, and I didn't want to have to wait for a custom build option. My cost was $US 129 to my door, which is comparable, although higher, than my cost to DIY a set of speaker cables using the method I currently adhere to.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
Why show pF when uF is the more commonly used unit at that level of magnitude??
We seem to have some typos in the unit of measure.
No cable as even one uF capacitance in any reasonable length.
186.6 uF is a big electrolytic capacitor.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
We seem to have some typos in the unit of measure.
No cable as even one uF capacitance in any reasonable length.
186.6 uF is a big electrolytic capacitor.
Of course, if I had hit the key I wanted.......

My hands seem to have a mind of their own!
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
I have another 40+ days (as of today) to return them for a full refund. The vendor is local, so no other costs (shipping) to me. Sorry, thought I'd mentioned the trial period terms of the transaction.

We seem to have some typos in the unit of measure.
No cable as even one uF capacitance in any reasonable length.
186.6 uF is a big electrolytic capacitor.
That's a measured value with a Lab Grade LCR meter. The physical size of a capacitor is mostly dependent on the voltage rating. So, apparently at least one cable in a very reasonable (5 foot) length is at least one uF capacitance.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I have another 40+ days (as of today) to return them for a full refund. The vendor is local, so no other costs (shipping) to me. Sorry, thought I'd mentioned the trial period terms of the transaction.



That's a measured value with a Lab Grade LCR meter. The physical size of a capacitor is mostly dependent on the voltage rating. So, apparently at least one cable in a very reasonable (5 foot) length is at least one uF capacitance.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
And what do you think the voltage rating of a cable is?
Hint:
Some interconnect cables are rated at 3000V.
While speaker cables don't have high voltage ratings, their construction is similar to AC power cables which many have 300V AC ratings. But if you test those speaker cables to failure (I have tested a few) it will be over 2000V when they fail.

You need to re-check your meter, it has a problem.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
I just looked up some reasonable Mogami #3103, 12AWG speaker cable. It's 106pF per meter or 32pF per foot.
Most power amps would be very unhappy with 1uF speaker cables.
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
We seem to have some typos in the unit of measure.
No cable as even one uF capacitance in any reasonable length.
186.6 uF is a big electrolytic capacitor.
And what do you think the voltage rating of a cable is?
Hint:
Some interconnect cables are rated at 3000V.
While speaker cables don't have high voltage ratings, their construction is similar to AC power cables which many have 300V AC ratings. But if you test those speaker cables to failure (I have tested a few) it will be over 2000V when they fail.

You need to re-check your meter, it has a problem.
Maybe I need to stuff my five feet of speaker cable into a cylinder and compare it to a high voltage capacitor, to see which is bigger.

Really, the capacitance figure is frequency-dependent. My first copy of the Mogami Catalog might be older than some of the posters here; let me just say it came in the mail because when it was published, Adobe was still working on how to run PhotoShop AND the Operating System in 2.5MB of RAM from a floppy disk.

Here's one: at what frequency does Mogami measure the capacitance of their speaker cable ...

Cable manufacturers don't typically quote capacitance at differing measured frequencies, but my meter does have that ability. At 1 KHz, capacitance is negligible (and I've clearly indicated that, twice now, in the numbers I've measured and posted here).

But 10KHz is in the audible range, and there's a measured value there. The response? My meter is broken. Wow, that's really helpful.
 
Last edited:
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
My "good reason" is to see what happens. Some people are willing to throw a little cash at something they are curious about, and others are satisfied to read reviews on the internet and leave it at that. I'm one of the former.
I'm of the 'What will my curiosity cost me' club.

I am going to state, right from the start, that I'm too old and have been in this hobby as both an amateur and as someone earning a living from audio in one way or another to engage in argument, debates, or defence of one thing or another. What you see is what you get. Take it or leave it; I do not care whether you agree or disagree, and although I most certainly welcome your alternate take, I'm not interested in challenging anyone or defending what I believe.
What target or goal are in intending to hit other than providing some information? If any?


I do what I do because I want to do it, nothing more and nothing less, and if I feel like it, I report my conclusions, my still unanswered questions, and where I think it should go from there. This particular site is far from the ideal forum for the curious, because it's populated by a faction of people who *know everything* and waste no time in challenging anyone who dares think differently from the foregone conclusion.
I don't preclude data. But anecdata (opinion) is just as easily dismissed with opinion. But some hard data, independently re-producible and verified data is always welcome.


Looking at a loudspeaker cable as an entity to itself is, in my opinion, a mistake. Power Amplifiers vary more than virtually any audio component in design and construction, and the cable between amp and crossover is part of a system. Resistance is not a huge issue in most home system speaker length applications, but capacitance and inductance can and do affect amplifier performance and, in more instances than many realize, power amplifier stability.
Then I would say using common speaker level cables (Belden, Liberty, Canare, GepCo etc...) presenting a problem in combination with a power amp then the problem is the power amp.

I've yet to see any competent amplifier exhibit oscillation or phase problems due to properly designed speaker cables. FYI I designed and architechted A/V, DAW, and Live sound systems for 7 years. AMX, Crestron, Extron, Grass Valley, NewTek, Pinnacle, Media 100, Genelec, JBL, Crown, QSC, Bryston, Benchmark, BSS, Lake Processing, Lab Gruppen, Apogee, the list goes on....


For those of you that are left, it's my belief that amplifiers most obviously reveal their sonic signature when asked to operate near the edge of their performance envelope. As an example, amplifiers have distinct sonic attributes when operating at the onset of clipping, and if you drive your speakers at high levels, you are going to hear the differences between two amplifiers of different topology.
You aren't hearing a difference you are hearing how an amplifier is failing.

So, at a minimum, we must establish that those values (capacitance, inductance, resistance) form part of the attributes of our ideal loudspeaker cable. Because there is so much variation in power amp topology, we can't simply assume that if our loudspeaker cable works in one, or some, applications, that our work is done.
Then ask the amplifier designer what is the best speaker cable to use.

Silver-coated copper is used for the exact same reasons it carries a Military Specification for Aircraft and Aerospace applications (and many other military or medical applications) ... it protects against copper corrosion, which with copper oxides significantly affects it's electrical performance. Combined with the skin effect, well, it's better if you don't have to deal with corrosion. So I choose not to deal with it by specifying silver-coated copper wire.
Skin effect is BS for 20Khz applications.

Oxidation: Tin the cable ends.

Silver oxides are relatively good conductors, so corrosion of the silver outer coating is not a detriment to electrical performance.
So is tough pitch copper.

Part of the typical MilSpec for that application is PTFE dielectric (DuPont Teflon© or equivalent). PTFE is the closest to ideal dielectric (air) for solid material, we can call that "good enough". (There are higher-performing dielectrics, whereby air is incorporated to create a foamed, rather than solid, dielectric).
I have some of a spool of 14AWG CL2 cable left from an install over 10 years ago.... Hold on a sec...

Ok, I dug it out of the basement. The copper is nice and shiny.

PTFE / Teflon dielectric is temperature and flame resistant. It's used due to it's safety rating. It was never designed around audio performance.

Some have answered the question for themselves and really don't need to re-evaluate their choices, and that's fine. As for myself, I am much more comfortable with examining the potential issues and solutions, to simply "find out for myself" if conventional wisdom is valid or not. I don't expect others to feel the same way, and don't care if anyone agrees, disagrees, or has a sudden, unusual interest in my financial health.
I stick with well engineered products from manufacturers I've already mentioned. I don't go bottom of the barrel no name Chinese product. But you don't have to go to $130 cable extreme either.

For full disclosure I have a pair of MIT EXP2 speaker cables ~$260. If you can pick them out 19/20 blind roll of the dice you can have my Statements ;-) vs my Belden 5000ue that cost me ~$16.

2000% the cost for 0% performance gain.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
1 uF is 100,000 pF

1nF is 1000 pF.
And as I responded to the first person to correct me, "Of course, if I had hit the key I wanted.......

My hands seem to have a mind of their own!"
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
Here's one: at what frequency does Mogami measure the capacitance of their speaker cable ...
In fact they measure it at 5 different frequencies.

Mogami_speaker_cable.jpg
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top