Changing standard speaker links

[lindsayt]

So they're coaxial cables?

Suggestion still applies for trying the 322 or 770 strand cable for £10 to £20.

If the cables too thick - highly likley with 770 strand - you can always split it into 3 and plait it around your terminals - as per the left terminals in this pic:

 

[SemiChronic]

Hahaha I like this thread . .

 

[Blacksabbath25]

So they're coaxial cables?

Suggestion still applies for trying the 322 or 770 strand cable for £10 to £20.

If the cables too thick - highly likley with 770 strand - you can always split it into 3 and plait it around your terminals - as per the left terminals in this pic:

ok thanks for the picture if you have bear copper like that surely it would not take long an till the copper started to have oxidation ?

In regards of after market jumps what's the difference between them and the gold jumper plates they put on speakers today ? Because when I made some simple ones up it changed the sound of my speakers .

i read on the Naim forums about the same thing about hardwiring the speaker cables in the F shape and a lot of people reported that there speakers sounded even better then with the standard gold jump the manufacturer puts on the speakers even people who own PMCs have done the same thing hardwired there speakers .

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

 

[andyjm]

Just a word of warning before you go plaiting your bare speaker cables to make jumpers.

Transistor amps really don't like driving into a dead short. If you really feel you need to get up to this sort of malarkey, just make sure there isn't a stray strand shorting between the positive and negative terminals. Depending on the amp, it will either shut down if it has decent protection circuitry, or will go to join that great circuit board in the sky.

- more of a problem with high strand-count cables as the strands are much thinner and easier to miss.

 

[andyjm]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

 

[nopiano]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

However, it also permits bi-amping, which is harder to rationalise as claptrap, especially if you are an amplifier manufacturer!

 

[Al ears]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

However, it also permits bi-amping, which is harder to rationalise as claptrap, especially if you are an amplifier manufacturer!

+1

For many a year I have considered them bi-amping sockets as bi-wiring is pointless

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

However, it also permits bi-amping, which is harder to rationalise as claptrap, especially if you are an amplifier manufacturer!

+1

For many a year I have considered them bi-amping sockets as bi-wiring is pointless

I read on here before that bi-amping is a wast of time and your just better of buying a better amplifier or do mono - blocks as amplification . It's all confusing stuff when lots of people have lots of opinions .

 

[CnoEvil]

I read on here before that bi-amping is a wast of time and your just better of buying a better amplifier or do mono - blocks as amplification . It's all confusing stuff when lots of people have lots of opinions .

I am one of those who thinks bi-amping is a very expensive way of getting an improvement....unless....you already have an amp that you really like and can pick another one up ie. more cheaply than putting all the money to something better again.

It's confusing, because there are lots of different situations that have different solutions.

 

[Al ears]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

However, it also permits bi-amping, which is harder to rationalise as claptrap, especially if you are an amplifier manufacturer!

+1

For many a year I have considered them bi-amping sockets as bi-wiring is pointless

I read on here before that bi-amping is a waste of time and your just better of buying a better amplifier or do mono - blocks as amplification . It's all confusing stuff when lots of people have lots of opinions .

By bi-amping I meant monoblocks, there is no other way......

I wouldn't consider using two integrated., or indeed an integrated and a stereo power.

 

[MajorFubar]

Seems clear that bi-amping has the potential to change the sound, because each driver gets its own dedicated power amp. Whether the change is inherrently positive, well that's another question.

I'm surprised boutique hifi manufacturers haven't latched onto the concept of designing different mono-blocks optimized for either LF or HF, which you would buy as a pair for each channel. For a start, the amp driving the HF units doesn't need to have shedloads of current in reserve to deliver controlled thumping bass, so you could lose the 50,000μF+ reservoir capacitors, and instead incorporate other circuitry changes that optimise its performance in the >=1kHz range.

EDIT...actually just thinking, this would probably only work best if you split the frequencies ahead of the power amps. Think I've just invented actives...

 

[Oldphrt]

The only thing I can think of is more resistance or less resistance from the speaker cable as the gold links that came with the speakers have a much bigger contact then the speaker cable has maybe the resistance changed ?

If you want to try another free upgrade...polish all the plug pins with Brasso and clean further with Isopropyl Alcohol (if you have it) + clean all plugs on the end of the leads with the same Alcohol (or plug them in and out a couple of times). It's mad, but can improve the sound.

Dance naked around the room with a bucket on your head.

 

[CnoEvil]

Dance naked around the room with a bucket on your head.

That only happens after I have cleaned all the contacts, as it all just sounds so much better. *dance4*

 

[Vladimir]

If you are a gear swapper you will probably hate those things. If you buy s/h you'll notice some ppl lose them over time. On occasions I've simply used the speaker wire bare end uncut as a continuous bridge.

 

[avole]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

Harbeth had to include them for the US market, but have now gone back to single binding posts. I got the feeling Alan Shaw subsequently bitterly regretted what was a purely marketing decision.

 

[nopiano]

Someone asked PMC why they bother with bi -wiring they said it's just fashion ?

Yep - serious speakers 'must have biwiring capability' to be taken seriously, therefore all serious speakers have them.

Its all claptrap from an engineering perspective.

Harbeth had to include them for the US market, but have now gone back to single binding posts. I got the feeling Alan Shaw subsequently bitterly regretted what was a purely marketing decision.

Mr Shaw definitely has some distinct views, though I'm sure he prefers selling more speakers than fewer. Customer demand is ignored at one's peril.