I completely agree.
1 Like
Does good cable design also take into account protecting the signal from RF pollution? Is that something that most manufactures measure, and try to reduce the influence of?
I wonder if the neuroscience work of others and myself published in the mid 1970s would assist. We measured ā via our computer programs and recording of electrical noise across cell membranes ā the time courses of various ion currents and the effects of drugs on them. To enable adequate sensitivity, we designed laboratory Faraday cages (mine was about a 10x10x10 feet cube) made of copper screen to surround the minute recordings from ultra-tiny intra-cellular glass electrodes. I wrote programs to convert analog-to-digital for subsequent computer analysis.
The FR Series is perfect for direct speaker wire pairing. I think that an additional set on your FR20ās would make a sizable improvement and fit in your budget. Simply put, the SPTPC Series 2 is great driving the speaker full range, but putting a second ālesserā set, like the all cooper version, on the bass cabinet, is even better. This is all born out in Galenās measurements as well, where the Series 2 excels in most all frequencies over Series 1, but has no advantage on the lowest frequencies. Bypassing internal cabinet wiring and jumpers is also a plus. Give it a shot, your almost there.
2 Likes
The only way is up! 
1 Like
There are absolutely tests that can be done for RF, but how that test result would impact a low impedance lead is questionable. Test thyat are āaccurateā but donāt really define the underlying function can make thinbgs just get worseā¦so many testes we are lost again. Should we test our equipment for water proofing? We could do that, but what does it mean?
I have a paper on shielding, and it is mostly RF, on the ICONOCLAST web site for those that want to peak at RF testing. Again, the test methods are industry standardized tests.
Once you read that paper, the values are 100% accurate for our IC cable, even though we donāt use them @ RF, the shielding is 80 dB (single braid) 95 dB (double braid) attenuation or better using SEED tests on twinaxial and coaxial and are accurate for BOTH ends grounded Shielding and RF immunity on a speaker cable? Not so much as the S/N ration is massive at RF. S/N is also massive at IC voltage levels compared to a serial digital signal on a coaxial cable.
Best,
Galen
Straightwire, you did your homework! A+. Thatās exactly where I want everybody. Get what works best where and why. Stop if the advantage isnāt capable on your system. Spend the least to get the most.
4 Likes
Iām curious what the imāpeātus was for creating the SPTPC Series 2? Were newly discovered measuring techniques employed, that revealed shortcomings in the series 1?
Uh oh, didnāt do your homework!
Galen would have to weigh in. But, I think the S2 advantage lies more in design and manufacturing techniques than in measurement advances. In particular, the use of a greater number of 40 ga. wires verses a smaller number of 28 ga. wires yielded better specs. The trick would be can you build it and connect it. They did.
So do you know if there was an improvement in sound quality in the series 2 vs 1, or is it just a more robustly constructed cable now?
I do not see any physical difference. The S2 sounds better than the S1. That is why the S2 is on the mid/top box and the S1 on the bottom. Itās been several years since Iāve done the swap, so specifics allude me but I know it was readily apparent, not just a different in character. Better is better.
2 Likes
IMO, clearly. The numbers are the beginning not the end IME.
The series II are a concious decision to increase the cost in order to flatten the Vp linearity with more and smaller 28 AWG wires over the 24 AWG used in the series I. Series II doubled the 28 AWG wire count and this required a big design of expirement matrix on the weaver/braider machine to achieve the best L and C with the new polarity design.
The decision was also driven to use them ultimately as a āsetā with the series I on the bottom end and the series II up top. You could call this the series III. So we added two performance jumps with careful design properties.
There is ALWAYS a weakness in analog cable. The question was and is, what are customers wanting to pay for? We had too many say go to the next step so we did. We design to a cost and get the best we can at that cost. Once you reach an incremental adjustment, the cost is sizeably higher.
Best,
Galen
5 Likes
Ah the eternal āS Curveā !
Galen,
I have a pair of series I OFEs feeding my FR20s. Iām thinking about adding a set of series II, but OFE is not offered in the series II. For my setup, which would you recommend TPC or SPTPC for the series II to go with my series I OFEs? Is mix-matching Cable Stock less than ideal?
Thanks,
Mark
1 Like
Mark, I was in the same boat as you. In my case the SPTPC Series II made for a nice match.
2 Likes
So if youāre you are not used to Galen"s explanations, the arrival time of different frequencies at your speaker terminals will be closer together with the series II. Different frequencies travel down the wire at different speeds, but there is less of a time difference with the series II versus series I.
Unless I have that all wrong of course.
Mark, send me an email or give me a call so that I can arrange for you to listen a pair of Series II SPTPC in conjunction with your Series I OFE cables in a bi-wire application. bhoward@iconoclastcable.com
2 Likes
Thanks Tony and Bob!
Looks like SPTPC it is. .
Bob,
I will be sending an email shortly.