Which is the optimal length of speaker wires?

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

Azazello
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 630
Joined: 2007-01-30 21:59
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Azazello »

Do you conciser it a possibility that there are other "optimal" lengths? for example; if the result have to do with some kind of wavelength, 4,96 meter might be good as well?
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Azazello wrote:Do you conciser it a possibility that there are other "optimal" lengths? for example; if the result have to do with some kind of wavelength, 4,96 meter might be good as well?
No, I don't think so.

10 m sounds very dull.
5 m is much better than 10, but still dull.
3 m is better still etc.

If you listen to the differences, you'll hear it's a gradual change and then a peak at 2.48 which sounds just right. Shorter becomes harsh and restless. There are no ups and downs in performance over various lengths, so nothing indicates the influence of a wavelength.
u252agz
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2013-10-03 12:44
Location: UK

Post by u252agz »

The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.

This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.

Should I consider doing this? or would i lose something in the long silvers/soldering etc

If so - where do I source the silvers and how much would they cost?
Kalla/Sag M/Tun M3/242/LP12/Slip7

Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e

Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
donuk
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 406
Joined: 2010-02-21 13:25

Post by donuk »

My personal view is that you should avoid long lengths of silvers if at all possible.
don sunny downtown York
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

+1

Fredrik and others seem united that it's not possible to improve Linn factory soldering. Therefore, keep your IC's 1.2m long since source first theory dictates that speaker cable is less important.

The main thing is that they are not too short. I seem to recall Fredrik stating that significantly longer than 2.48m was not such as big deal, where as short can be quite fatiguing. Anthony's are over 5m and nothing wrong with his system :)
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

u252agz wrote:The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.

This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
This is a tricky one! I have only made a few comparisons and they point in different directions.

At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).

The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.

I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
fatjulio
Active member
Active member
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-01-13 23:22

Post by fatjulio »

I went from standard length silver (1.2m) interconnect with 5m speaker cable, to 3m silver interconnect and 2.5m speaker cable. It was a very good improvement.
I first tried the shorter speaker cable with 1.2m interconnects and moving the bits closer to see if it was an improvement. It definitely was. So I got some 3m silver interconnects made. The interconnect sound may have suffered because of this, but it's very minor relative to the shorter speaker cable improvement.
anthony
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2007-02-04 22:39
Location: UK

Post by anthony »

lejonklou wrote:
u252agz wrote:The only way I can us 2.48 m in my listening room, at the moment is to put the Tundras in the AV unit.

This would mean two Linn silvers of 9 metres each, connecting Sagatuns to Tundras.
This is a tricky one! I have only made a few comparisons and they point in different directions.

At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).

The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.

I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
Also take into consideration the surface of the new location may affect sound as well.
u252agz
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 786
Joined: 2013-10-03 12:44
Location: UK

Post by u252agz »

Thanks for the advice folks,

I think I would have to try some long silvers, and 2.48m K200 and see how they affect the music before deciding to go ahead.

Anthony has a point - the Tundras would end up on glass shelves in the MDF AV unit vs nice solid walnut ones in the solid wood Hi fi Unit.

If I can get my hands on the above cables -I will try with surface cables and decide.

Inserting the cables into the floor/ walls is a half a day job for my builders and a full day for me trying to reconnect the AV Amp. I need to be sure this would be worthwhile.
Kalla/Sag M/Tun M3/242/LP12/Slip7

Kalla/Giella Pi/JBL308/RS2e

Majik LP12/Boazu/110s
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Post by Charlie1 »

lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).

The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.

I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Charlie1 wrote:
lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).

The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.

I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?
No. I compared the two when using the long speaker cables. The Silvers were clearly better.

But as a whole, the long IC and 2.48 m K200 was more enjoyable.
moog_man
Active member
Active member
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-04-06 12:43
Location: UK

Post by moog_man »

lejonklou wrote:
Charlie1 wrote:
lejonklou wrote:At home I used to have Tundras by the other electronics, with an original 1.2 m Linn Silver (new model pair, good but not best) into Tundra and about 4 m K200 to speakers (212).

The alternative was 4 m of Linn black interconnect (that i soldered myself) to Tundra, positioned in between the speakers and 2.48 m of K200.

I was convinced the first option would be better (one previous test indicated that), but it turned out to be the second. Tried it several times to make sure. Not sure exactly why this was the case, as there is one gain and one loss in both options. And as Charlie said, Source First points towards the interconnect being more important.
That's a surprise. Is it possible you soldered the Black IC's better than the 1.2m Silvers?
No. I compared the two when using the long speaker cables. The Silvers were clearly better.

But as a whole, the long IC and 2.48 m K200 was more enjoyable.
Is now an appropriate time to get in to the whole, "Balanced vs unbalanced" cable run discussion?
Soon I would like to know this as I prepare to move back to my apartment and take up floorboards to lay new cables, etc.
My mini dilemma being.. Silver RCAs to x3 Tundra (212 + 225). Or, Silver XLRs to current set-up: KCT/d - 212 and 4200 - 225.
If it was purely a question of aesthetics, it would be the three Tundra in a row under the TV and black array on black ash speakers. Heavy ninja vibe. I don't doubt the sound wouldn't be too much of a concern, either.

My interest is whether running lengths of interconnect - mine would be almost 3 x 6mtr - is served better as Balanced, or RCA ? General consensus seems to be Balanced, but how much difference is there between the two?
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Post by tokenbrit »

I don't think there is consensus - there's a reason why Tundra do not have balanced inputs ;)
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

moog_man wrote:Is now an appropriate time to get in to the whole, "Balanced vs unbalanced" cable run discussion?
Soon I would like to know this as I prepare to move back to my apartment and take up floorboards to lay new cables, etc.
My mini dilemma being.. Silver RCAs to x3 Tundra (212 + 225). Or, Silver XLRs to current set-up: KCT/d - 212 and 4200 - 225.
If it was purely a question of aesthetics, it would be the three Tundra in a row under the TV and black array on black ash speakers. Heavy ninja vibe. I don't doubt the sound wouldn't be too much of a concern, either.

My interest is whether running lengths of interconnect - mine would be almost 3 x 6mtr - is served better as Balanced, or RCA ? General consensus seems to be Balanced, but how much difference is there between the two?
I prefer unbalanced.

Both from a theoretical point of view (balanced is more noisy and there are problems associated with splitting and adding signals), from practical experiments (they always seem to loose a bit of flow compared to unbalanced) and in addition, the current best interconnect cables are unbalanced. For instance Linns Silver cable, which is better in the unbalanced version than in the balanced.

6 m is no problem in a home environment, unless you are running the cables next to mains power cables or something else that is high voltage or high current.
User avatar
Music Lover
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1673
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil

Post by Music Lover »

tokenbrit wrote:I don't think there is consensus
Correct.
It's depending on the quality of the silver cables!
Me and Linnofil once compared around 15 pairs = 30 cables one by one. Some balanced.
All were placed in best to worst.
Among these...4 great single-ended and 2 balanced were just great.

Most were good, but 2 were boring.
(NOTE - of course all cables were Linn original. Would NEVER ever use a "home-soldered" cable)

So if you compare a great balanced pair with a bad single ended pair...well guess the outcome.

So if you compare balanced vs single ended - start selecting two good pairs!

In my system the best performance was balanced to the pre and single ended to the power amps. But again, it can be different with other cables!

PS
I suggest moving the rack/speakers to be able to use original Linn IC's and Lejonklou K400. It really is worth it.
It's all about musical understanding!
moog_man
Active member
Active member
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-04-06 12:43
Location: UK

Post by moog_man »

Very interesting.
Thanks, both for your thoughts.

Looks like I get to fulfill both aesthetic and aural wishes, then. That's good.
Music Lover, fyi - I consider myself very fortunate to have a pair of K-200 made up by Fredrik last summer. Prior to that I was an obedient advocate of K-400, albeit both extremely short and longer (than the recommended 2.48mtr). I'm unable to quantify exactly how or why, but the 2.48 length works beautifully. So much so that I haven't bothered to compare single-wired Ljnk K-200 vs bi-wired 'regular' K-400 into 212s, which would be through the 4200.
In an ideal world, ie. When funds are available, I'd like to try some Ljnk K-400s. That's the only fair way to audition single-wired vs bi-wire to determine any advantage.

Fredrik - appreciate your insights. The i/c will run under the floorboards - away from mains cabling and so on.
stefan
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 2007-02-13 03:22
Location: Lerum/Sweden

Post by stefan »

Music Lover wrote:...
In my system the best performance was balanced to the pre and single ended to the power amps. But again, it can be different with other cables!
...
I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.
User avatar
Erik
Active member
Active member
Posts: 217
Joined: 2007-01-31 20:14
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik »

When I had the KK, I easily preferred single ended connection from the KDS.

/Erik
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

stefan wrote:I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.
Both balanced and unbalanced outputs are through a transformer on the Klimax (and K Renew) DS players. The same is true for Urika.

And if you read the Urika manual, you will find that its designers recommend the unbalanced output for best performance, unless very long cable runs are necessary.
stefan
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 2007-02-13 03:22
Location: Lerum/Sweden

Post by stefan »

lejonklou wrote:
stefan wrote:I've been told that KDS/1 have transformers on the balanced output and therefore it's preferable with KK. ADS (either version) do not.
Both balanced and unbalanced outputs are through a transformer on the Klimax (and K Renew) DS players. The same is true for Urika.

And if you read the Urika manual, you will find that its designers recommend the unbalanced output for best performance, unless very long cable runs are necessary.
OK, thanks for clarify Fredrik. As I suspected from posts in the past from ML and others, you are comparing cables rather than balanced/unbalanced.
hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 360
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl »

lejonklou wrote:I prefer unbalanced.

Both from a theoretical point of view (balanced is more noisy and there are problems associated with splitting and adding signals), from practical experiments (they always seem to loose a bit of flow compared to unbalanced) and in addition, the current best interconnect cables are unbalanced. For instance Linns Silver cable, which is better in the unbalanced version than in the balanced.
I guess both unbalanced and balanced have its pros and cons, but how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?

...

Also interesting to find that cables does not nessesarily conform to the source first rule.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

stefan wrote:OK, thanks for clarify Fredrik. As I suspected from posts in the past from ML and others, you are comparing cables rather than balanced/unbalanced.
There are several aspects of balanced versus unbalanced. One is the real-life practical aspect, such as when Linnofil and ML compared all of their interconnects to pick out the best ones. Then they concluded that the best cables won, regardless of the balanced/unbalanced issue.

I haven't made any such comparison. In order to evaluate them for my own products, I tried to give both options an equal opportunity and therefore soldered my own balanced and unbalanced interconnects (making them as identical as possible). With those I have compared circuits that others have designed and circuits I have designed myself. And to sum it up, balanced usually sounds more dynamic while unbalanced is more nuanced and harmonic. I decided to continue with unbalanced after this, because I found it better. But this is no decision cut in stone. If an irresistable balanced circuit comes to mind, I won't heistate to try it. It's all about getting the most musical enjoyment!
hcl wrote:I guess both unbalanced and balanced have its pros and cons, but how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?
This is no conclusion of mine, it's common knowledge. Just as balanced is more effective at supressing interference, the circuits also become more noisy. I'd say that most balanced input circuits are at least 6 dB more noisy than their unbalanced counterparts.

But this is a lame argument and I shouldn't have brought it up. Because minimizing noise is not super important in my opinion. I have many times traded some noise for better stability, when the result has been more musical.
hcl
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 360
Joined: 2008-01-13 11:03
Location: Göteborg
Contact:

Post by hcl »

lejonklou wrote:
hcl wrote:... how do you come to the conclusion that balanced are more noisy?
This is no conclusion of mine, it's common knowledge. Just as balanced is more effective at supressing interference, the circuits also become more noisy. I'd say that most balanced input circuits are at least 6 dB more noisy than their unbalanced counterparts.

But this is a lame argument and I shouldn't have brought it up. Because minimizing noise is not super important in my opinion. I have many times traded some noise for better stability, when the result has been more musical.
As the noise in each leg in the balanced input is non correlated the total noise on the output will be 3 dB higher. If each leg is applied with a signal corresponding to a similar single ended signal, the output equals a correlated sum i.e. 6 dB larger, so the noise will only be 3 dB higher and the signal 6 dB higher hence the signal to noise ratio 3 dB higher than in an ubalanced circuit. If the source signal has to be split in to there will be a 3 dB loss going from un-balanced to balanced hence no gain in doing that and there will be a corresponding loss when going from balanced-to un-balanced.

... but as, you wrote; That is lame argument to base any decisions on.
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by ThomasOK »

Note that Fredrik was not saying that the balanced cable was noisier but that the balanced input circuits are generally noisier.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by lejonklou »

Sorry hcl, but your arguments are simplistic. To get a better understanding, take a look at actual circuits and summarize their sources of noise. Then you will find that a large contributor is the high value resistors required for a decent input load. Those cause most balanced inputs to be significantly more noisy than unbalanced.

Signal to noise is another matter. Any noise added after the volume control will remain, regardless of signal strength. So there it's best to keep the noise floor down.
Post Reply