Belden ICONOCLAST Interconnects and Speaker Cabling

[rower30]

Yes, the magic of the CLX is when you get a good musical sub in there. For the money spent they are a nice package. To get better overall, you need to spend double the money for the mains. I am always impressed at how good the CLX are compared to the better, but HUGELY more expensive, CWT’s. The CWT and CLX share a lot of the same philosophy, too. Line sources for excellent imaging and sound stage placement), and a super fast driver compliments top down to match the 2,000 Hz and up electrostatic panel. The CLX “omission” is mostly in the bass where good musical subs can mitigate it. Subs enhance the granted, deeper and more powerful dynamic driver CWT’s bass. The CWT upgrade was a costly one as I had the CLX which aren’t easy to substantually improve in key areas.

My standard music sound so much more interesting with the six pack on eith r set of speakers. There is source emotion that was missing and you don’t realize the differences until the six pack arrived. No matter the moves or changes in my life, I will ALWAYS make sure to fit in a six pack of air suspension and high quality subs.

Right now I have NO ROOM as I keep collecting BIG boxes and items. We all know how we grow attached to all our stuff and keep it. I should sell the CLX and stereo balanced set of force 212 subs with the perfect bass kit complete for $15,000 and get the WAF back in-line. It’s all factory complete on packaging so it should ship as well. That’s a couple sets of boxes but I have SIX REL SUPER HUGE boxes eating up the HVAC room. I just need to do it and make someone real happy.

Best, Galen

[rower30]

People often ask when to use XLR or RCA. First, let’s look at the fundamentals. An RCA is the most perfect voltage transfer cable there is. It meaures the voltage from the center conductor to a reference ground.

An XLR in contrast creates a balanced voltage referenced to a ground and at twice the potential as the RCA to drive longer cable lengths. This balanced XLR design creates a capacitance unbalance, CUB, because the two different voltage can’t be perfectly the same. We can have an XLR cable geometry that is very good, but not perfect. When we measure the voltage from each side of the balanced circuit, it won’t be 100% identical. But don’t despair, there is a big advantage with XLR described below.

Above is the signal side. Now we need to look at the EMI/RFI shielding side. For EMI/RFI a 100% foil shield will provide 100 dB isolation. But the foil is fragile so it is accompanied by a heavy braid shield on the XLR. The RCA uses two high coverage double braids that shield EMI/RFI equivalent to a single foil+braid. The RCA differs using the heavy braids for shielding because the shield also need to be a signal return in RCA single ended designs, so a super low DCR is required. Both ends of and RCA need to be at the same potential, zero. They c an’t be so we do have a very small return current that is inaudible in normal lengths. The XLR has a floating virtual ground and does not need this low DCR ground feature. XLR cables need a PIN 1 ground suitable for EMI/RFI and this is a drain wire.

Last we need to look at low frequency magnetic B-fields. Here the braids and foils are transparent to magnetic fields in both RCA and XLR. A shield that has a low permeability, similar to a low DCR, to magnetic flux lines is required. What kind of material is that? The easiest subject materisl is anything a magnet will stick to. And yes, those are STIFF metal pipes or similar. RCA by design can’t be too practical made this way and are subject to magnetic field interference (hum). XLR in contrast use a balanced topology to cancel the magnetic fields, and magnetic fields couple more the longer the run. XLR go a long way with the higher the voltage potential, and can shield EMI/RFI and magnetic fields. The trade-off is the voltage transfer function is slightly less than perfect. This is a fine trade-off to be able to make long runs or through dense magnetic field areas.

What is an example of a good place to be sure to use and XLR cable? If you have a situation like we see below, a good XLR cable is insurance we won’t get low frequency magnetic field problems. See that green cable snaking through the massive bundle of EPDM power cords? And yep, those cords all spit out magnetic fields. Shielded power cords don’t shield low frequency magnetic fields, only EMI/RFI so if you are counting on that, don’t.

Summary

An RCA is the obsolute best voltage transfer function design, ALWAYS.

An XLR is the best low frequency balanced topology magnetic shield design, ALWAYS.

Both RCA and XLR if made properly shield EMI/RFI 100 dB or more.

RCA to 30 feet or so. XLR longer than that OR if you have an intense bundle of power cords, run near big transformers, or like situation where magnetic noise could be a problem.

Hope this helps out.

Galen

[flenser55]

Galen,

I own a pair of Vandersteen 5A Carbon speakers, which have built-in powered subwoofers like the Quatros. I have them bi-wired now with Analysis Plus Oval 9’s on both sides of the crossover, but if I were to replace my current speaker cables with Iconoclast cables, how would you suggest I bi-wire them? I’m pretty sure that Series 2 belongs on the top, but what about feeding the subwoofers? Series 1? Something else?

Thanks!

— Chris

[rower30]

For cables below 300 Hz give or take some, you want series I’s higher CMA area (9600 versus 7632) to handle the current draw. What is the voltage drop difference across the lead?
9,600 CMA / 7,632 CMA * (1.31%) = 1.68%
A 0.34% difference.

The difference isn’t a problem using the series II full range, but to bi-wire use the cheaper series I. Use each technically where it works the best.

The series I is the best choice to blend into the series II, and how it was designed to be a “series III” in combination. The GRAPH below sums it up. I bi-wire series I on the bottom, series II on the top with my CWT’s. The advantage with the 28 AWG is exhibited well above ~300 Hz, the typical cross-over range, but the CHART below the graph illustrates how well I’ve managed to blend the two into “one” cable used bi-wire, Nice, really nice.

And I owned the Quatro Wood too for good while! Great priced range speaker.

Best, Galen

[flenser55]

Thanks, Galen.

I’d asked about the cables for the bottom since, due to the fact that the Vandersteen 5A Carbons have built-in powered subwoofers, I don’t expect the subwoofer amplifiers draw much current. But maybe I misunderstand what’s going on.

— Chris

[rower30]

The series I will also blend the Vp to the series II. However, as you are correct, the amplified bass on the Vandesteen is a high impedance input you don’t need the CMA area as it is technically a “high power” take-off to the internal class-B amplifier. The recommendation is to use the same type of cable for BOTH inputs. The ICONOCLAST series is designed to “blend" between them (above data).

The 5a “sub” uses shaped amplifier M5-HP cross-over module’s input signal from the premap to the power amps with a shape slope. The upper MID bass frequency and tweeter drivers are separated with bi-wire and are standard low impedance speaker inputs. If you do not know the technology between cables, use the SAME cable when bi-wiring as recommended by Vandersteen. Doing this method with the M5-HP insured the main amplifers sonic signature remains through the entire speaker. And, the upper section can still be properly bi-wired.

Galen

J

[flenser55]

Thanks, again. I see I didn’t look closely enough (or at all, really) at the crossover points of the speakers. It’s Series I and Series II, then.

— Chris

[rower30]

For those with a six pack or simiar subs that are RAISED off the floor;

I looked at my REL 31 six pack and decided to try another approach. You can always go back!

First, the fundamantal idea is to RAISE the bass image to the proper HEIGHT. A bass drum or kettle drum isn’t 18” off the floor after all. The bass eminates at 3 or more feet off the ground.

The first set-up had the lower sub level at a higher value than the upper. The thought was that the 25 Hz cross-over setting would need more level, and that the higher frequencies 30 Hz cross-over need less. Higher frequencies are more efficient. That’s true but…

The floor driver has reinforcement where the upper sub has the least. At the exact same X-over and level, the lower sub is decidedly LOUDER than the upper sub. To adjust that, an SPL meter says I needed to tweak the upper sub +3 more on the level to be the SAME volume. I set the lower sub to 25 Hz and the upper to 30 Hz and repeated the measurement. Same resut, the upper needs to be at least +3 (on my subs level control) as the lower for the same SPL output.

To lift the image up, I ended up flipping the sub’s SPL such that the upper is set higher level than the lower. This does indeed LIFT the image to a more natural position.

The L-shaped room also has an issue that requires me to use the balance to move the image +4 (2 dB) to the LEFT speaker sitting in the open with no wall(s) reinforcement. This also adjusts the bass too, so we get a more even SPL response.

I’d definitiely say, with my experimenting around, that the upper sub needs to be LOUDER than the lower to flip the image off the floor and to lift it to a more realistic image position. Better, the upper bass harmonics are image height blended. How much upper bass SPL is required depends on your room and mains speaker.

As set now, the sound quality of the IMAGE is much better to my ear. The overall the bass doesn’t always image at the floor (some sources are recorded that way, be aware). You don’t have separate image placements to try to blend. They are now both blended to the same image height. Give it a try, so far I’m pleased with the switch. And it is all switches, you can always go back.

Best, Galen