or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › RCA Cable interconnects for a high end budget system
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RCA Cable interconnects for a high end budget system - Page 2

post #31 of 61
OKay...... one more time and I'm out.

You have a stereo integrated amp. You have a powered sub with limited connection options. I stand by my recommendations (for connection and wire/cables) for the optimal results (without investing in other hardware or overpriced cables/wires). OTOH, when you decide to invest and upgrade to new "stuff", that should be a new discussion. Work with what you have now and enjoy.

Good luck.
post #32 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by matr2589 View Post

My current understanding is that an AVR would give me bass management but at the price of ever so slightly cleaner sound. I like the idea of an EQ idea because it will give me bass management and room equalization without that slight sacrifice.

The quality loss due to integrated amp versus AVR is at best controversial.

The quality improvement due to bass management is generally very noticable.
Quote:
An AVR can have digital signal processing, video circuts and an amp driving more than 2 channels. All of this stuff adds slight amounts of internal distortion and are attributes I don't necessiarly need or wish to pay for.

Subtle improvements or audible improvements?
Quote:
You can see this in the THD and SNL ratings of good AVRs compared to Integrated Amplifier separates.





"This graph shows that the STR-DN1030’s left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads..."

Between 0 and 100 watts they look pretty much the same to me.

Also note that this is a comparison between a basic power amp (no preamp, no crossover) versus an AVR running from CD input (analog) to output including bass managment, equalizers, DSP, etc,

BTW this wasn't a cherry pick to hurt amps. I picked a power amp with 5 star ratings in as many categories as possible.
post #33 of 61
Quote:
My current understanding is that an AVR would give me bass management but at the price of ever so slightly cleaner sound.
True in theory, but not so much in practice. Distortion levels in even basic AVRs are still well below levels that would be audible. This assumes you aren't overdriving them. But an AVR designed to drive 5-7 speakers will have plenty of power for just two. And since you say you don't play really loud, you have even less to worry about.
Quote:
I like the idea of an EQ idea because it will give me bass management and room equalization without that slight sacrifice.
But that adds distortion, too—probably as much as the typical AVR does.
Quote:
This has turned from an interconnect wiring thread into a subwoofer and now an amplifier thread. Lol.
That's because your misimpressions about wires and your misimpressions about amps are of a piece. Neither has a real audible impact on sound quality. What has an impact on sound quality is the interaction between your speakers and your room. Remember that, and the advice you've been getting here will make sense.

That said, you have a nice integrated amp there, and if that's what you want to use, great. Go speaker-level to your sub and use the sub's crossover. That's your bass management right there, such as it is. If you want to start over someday, go with an AVR.
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post


You have a nice integrated amp there, and if that's what you want to use, great. Go speaker-level to your sub and use the sub's crossover. That's your bass management right there, such as it is. If you want to start over someday, go with an AVR.

Speaker level crossovers lack flexibility and precision as compared to what AVRs do in their DSPs.

For example the actual response characteristics of the high pass high level xover filters in the subwoofer which are dependent on the actual impedance of the speakers hooked to them.

Because of the low frequencies and impedances, we can pretty guarantee that the subwoofer's high pass crossover filter includes some series electrolytics that have more than enough measurable distortion to offset any of the minor losses due to an AVR that isn't among the better ones. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily audible, but for people who are hyper-impressed with numbers, some of the numbers due to using that passive high-level crossover in the sub aren't all that impressive.
post #35 of 61
OKay, I lied.

The OP was asking about about interconnects and speaker wire. Not looking for audio theory nor upgrading (at this time) amps/receivers, speakers or adding external hardware.

Let the guy experiment and learn without all the "tech" stuff. It's a just a stereo with a sub. rolleyes.gif
post #36 of 61
Quote:
The OP was asking about about interconnects and speaker wire. Not looking for audio theory nor upgrading (at this time) amps/receivers, speakers or adding external hardware.
So he picked up a little insight into some other areas of audio. No harm done.
Quote:
Let the guy experiment and learn without all the "tech" stuff.
There are productive ways to experiment, and nonproductive ways to "experiment." Experimenting with wires, at least in the way that has been suggested here, would fall in the latter category. Knowing some of the "tech" stuff helps one avoid such mistakes.
post #37 of 61
Quote:
Speaker level crossovers lack flexibility and precision as compared to what AVRs do in their DSPs.
Hence my addition of the phrase, "such as it is."
Quote:
Because of the low frequencies and impedances, we can pretty guarantee that the subwoofer's high pass crossover filter includes some series electrolytics that have more than enough measurable distortion to offset any of the minor losses due to an AVR that isn't among the better ones. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily audible, but for people who are hyper-impressed with numbers, some of the numbers due to using that passive high-level crossover in the sub aren't all that impressive.
True, but that's how we did it for decades, because it was all we had. And it worked pretty good. We have better tools now, but I don't begrudge anyone who wants to do it the traditional way.
post #38 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
Speaker level crossovers lack flexibility and precision as compared to what AVRs do in their DSPs.
Hence my addition of the phrase, "such as it is."

That would be a valuable qualification that slipped right by me.
Quote:
Quote:
Because of the low frequencies and impedances, we can pretty guarantee that the subwoofer's high pass crossover filter includes some series electrolytics that have more than enough measurable distortion to offset any of the minor losses due to an AVR that isn't among the better ones. I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily audible, but for people who are hyper-impressed with numbers, some of the numbers due to using that passive high-level crossover in the sub aren't all that impressive.
True, but that's how we did it for decades, because it was all we had. And it worked pretty good. We have better tools now, but I don't begrudge anyone who wants to do it the traditional way.

I guess that how some people did in for decades. I built my first active subwoofer crossover in the mid 70s and never looked back.

Distortion had nothing to do with it - the size of the coil of copper wire it took to do it right (air core and low ESR affected my thinking.

I find it ironic that all this fear and loathing of AVRs because of perceived issues with distortion in their crossovers (which is nil because it all happens in the digital domain) is overwhelmingly offset by the unfortunate natural consequences of doing it at speaker level in the analog domain. If you do a subwoofer crossover in the analog domain and want low distortion, you get to buy a lot of big air core chokes and huge film capacitors.
post #39 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

So he picked up a little insight into some other areas of audio. No harm done.
There are productive ways to experiment, and nonproductive ways to "experiment." Experimenting with wires, at least in the way that has been suggested here, would fall in the latter category. Knowing some of the "tech" stuff helps one avoid such mistakes.
Like "wet string" I guess. rolleyes.gif
post #40 of 61
Sarcasm go over your head, friend?
post #41 of 61
Thread Starter 
Actually, I'm learning a lot here, especially from the dissenting opinions.

I ordered the LC-1 Interconnect and 12 AWG Belden 5000ue Speaker Wire from Blue Jeans. Thanks!

I really didn't consider how important it was or was not to filter high / low pass to fronts and subwoofers... I guess modern AVRs have the ability to manage this somehow.
post #42 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Sarcasm go over your head, friend?
For me not at all...
for the OP, that would be questionable. Right Sparky? tongue.gif
post #43 of 61
Quote:
for the OP, that would be questionable. Right Sparky?
I have a higher opinion of the OP than that.
post #44 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by matr2589 View Post

Hi all,
I have been researching some forums and wanted to get some other opinions on cables for a high end budget system. Kindly let me know your thoughts here!
I'm not an audophile and am an amateur when it comes to better than average home audio, but I am looking to learn and enjoy by building a 2.0 or 2.1 analgue system that gives a great bang for the buck for many years. ...
1. What RCA Interconnects (2 or 3 feet only) do you recommend for the above setup from the CD player to Amp?
I'm considering:
Audioquest Gloden Gate
Blue Jean Cables RC1
2. What about speaker wire? (2-6 feet max)
3. Lastly, I can connect the subwoofer with RCA cables on a Pre-out or speaker wire from terminal "B"

This is sort of a two for one freebie post by me. smile.gif

Meaning this is the 2 channel forum, and I'm also posting info (below) in the AVS theory forum.

Speaker cables is way beyond too tough in my experience and opinion.

Not that I'm disinterested in speaker cables. smile.gif

But interconnect cable is somewhat easier.

So my own *best value* for analog/digital RCA interconnect cable is...

Easy, it's 1st rate Canare RCA connectors together with RG-6 video type cable ((solid center copper) with foil/braid shielding).

Best (in my 1st hand experience as a pleased customer) is to buy from Blue Jean Cable web site, but I see that they seem to be gone; meaning out of business?
post #45 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

This is sort of a two for one freebie post by me. smile.gif
Meaning this is the 2 channel forum, and I'm also posting info (below) in the AVS theory forum.
Speaker cables is way beyond too tough in my experience and opinion.
Not that I'm disinterested in speaker cables. smile.gif
But interconnect cable is somewhat easier.
So my own *best value* for analog/digital RCA interconnect cable is...
Easy, it's 1st rate Canare RCA connectors together with RG-6 video type cable ((solid center copper) with foil/braid shielding).
Best (in my 1st hand experience as a pleased customer) is to buy from Blue Jean Cable web site, but I see that they seem to be gone; meaning out of business?
Blue Jeans Cable website seems to be working just fine.
post #46 of 61
Guess I need an explanation, just what exactly is a "high end budget system"? rolleyes.gif
post #47 of 61
Quote:
Guess I need an explanation, just what exactly is a "high end budget system"?
It's a system for someone who can't afford to be as gullible as he is. smile.gif
post #48 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by matr2589 View Post

Hi all,
I have been researching some forums and wanted to get some other opinions on cables for a high end budget system. Kindly let me know your thoughts here!
I'm not an audophile and am an amateur when it comes to better than average home audio, but I am looking to learn and enjoy by building a 2.0 or 2.1 analgue system that gives a great bang for the buck for many years. ...
1. What RCA Interconnects (2 or 3 feet only) do you recommend for the above setup from the CD player to Amp?
I'm considering:
Audioquest Gloden Gate
Blue Jean Cables RC1
2. What about speaker wire? (2-6 feet max)
3. Lastly, I can connect the subwoofer with RCA cables on a Pre-out or speaker wire from terminal "B"

This is sort of a two for one freebie post by me. smile.gif

Meaning this is the 2 channel forum, and I'm also posting info (below) in the AVS theory forum.

Speaker cables is way beyond too tough in my experience and opinion.

Not that I'm disinterested in speaker cables. smile.gif

But interconnect cable is somewhat easier.

So my own *best value* for analog/digital RCA interconnect cable is...

Easy, it's 1st rate Canare RCA connectors together with RG-6 video type cable ((solid center copper) with foil/braid shielding).

Best (in my 1st hand experience as a pleased customer) is to buy from Blue Jean Cable web site, but I see that they seem to be gone; meaning out of business?

Nah, they're still there (thank goodness.)

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/
post #49 of 61
hi
Cables and interconnects does make a difference when your systems move up the lader, from my own personal experience, especially the speakers. As whether you are going for avr or integrated depends on whether you are listening to music more or thinking of moving towards movies later. For your current amp. the best is to wire it as suggested, that is amp to sun-in and use the sun-out to the speakers. I hađ been using that for a while till I upgraded my speakers. Now I listen to a pure 2 channel system.
post #50 of 61
Quote:
Cables and interconnects does make a difference when your systems move up the lader
That must be a very weird universe you live in, where spending money affects current flows.
Quote:
As whether you are going for avr or integrated depends on whether you are listening to music more or thinking of moving towards movies later.
Actually, it depends on nothing of the sort. It depends on whether you want a system with modern capabilities, or you'd prefer to tie your hands with legacy technology.
post #51 of 61
hi
I am putting in my 2cents worth here and I am out like ratman. Cables does make a difference get friends to loan and share and connect different cables L and R speakers and listen. Whether its interconnects or speaker cables there will be differences. However there is a diminishing return point where you really need a good speaker to hear the difference.
As for integrated or avr, the same dollar spent on the eqpt will yield different results for movie and 2 channel. OK I rest my case.
post #52 of 61
Quote:
I am putting in my 2cents worth here and I am out like ratman. Cables does make a difference get friends to loan and share and connect different cables L and R speakers and listen.

No, a long discredited statement isn't even worth two cents.
I would let you get away with a statement like: I believe, or I think I can hear differences between cables..
Nonsensical statements that globally without reservations cables make a difference despite umpteen blinded test that refute those statements are the height of idiocy.
post #53 of 61
post #54 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwong View Post

good read:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

One interesting factoid from a Toole article referenced there:



Per the caption the 4 tone bursts are characteristics of various damping factors ranging from 0.5 to 200. The two obottom-most look almost the same, yet one represents a damping factor of 4.0 and the other a damping factor of 200.

Another way to look at this pictures is that they represent amplifiers with 8 ohm loads that provide source impedances ranging from 16 ohms to 0.04 ohm. The actual source impedances from top to bottom are 16 ohms, 8 ohms, 2 ohms, and 0.04 ohms.

I guess the question is which means of expression of the same fact is more intuitive?
post #55 of 61
Many years ago, when JVC made something besides consumer schlock, and my hearing was much better than it is today, I had a JVC power amplifier that had a damping factor switch. It had settings from 1 to 100 IIRC. The only setting that sounded different from the rest was 1. And it was obviously the wrong setting for my speakers.
post #56 of 61
As to damping factor in passive x-over speakers: it is a useless value. And here why (with a swipe towards "biwiring")

http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm
Quote:
Figure 2.1 shows the crossover network as it is seen by the loudspeaker. The amplifier and speaker leads no longer exist, as they were assumed from the beginning to have zero impedance. The crossover now appears as a simple parallel LC network, with resonance tuned to the crossover frequency. For those who know what this means, the implication is obvious. For the remainder, we have a parallel tuned circuit, and with ideal components (no losses), its impedance is infinite at resonance! That means that at resonance, there is no damping whatsoever, and the "damping factor" is ... zero!
Quote:
What about moving further away from Xf ? Well, things improve, but not as much as you might expect or desire. At 2 octaves (500Hz and 8kHz), the parallel tuned circuit has an impedance of 3 ohms, so the DF is now ...

DF = Zspeaker / Zsource = 8 / 3 = 2.66

This is a far cry from the DF of between perhaps 50 to several hundred presented by the amplifier, and for many drivers may be unsatisfactory. Even at one decade (200Hz or 20kHz (i.e. 3.16 octaves either side of the XO frequency of 2kHz), the impedance is still 1.17 Ohms, giving a DF of only 6.8 - in a 3-way system, it is probable that the low-mid XO will be close by the 200Hz figure, and this will introduce even more problems!

In case you might be wondering, using a separate amplifier to drive each section of the crossover achieves exactly nothing. This arrangement is sometimes called "biamping" by those who know no better, but it is no such thing. I refer to it as "passive biamping" or "active biwiring". Whatever it may be called, it does nothing to fix the issues described, but it does add (needlessly IMO) to the cost and inconvenience of equipping your system.
post #57 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

As to damping factor in passive x-over speakers: it is a useless value. And here why (with a swipe towards "biwiring")

http://sound.westhost.com/biamp-vs-passive.htm
Quote:
Figure 2.1 shows the crossover network as it is seen by the loudspeaker. The amplifier and speaker leads no longer exist, as they were assumed from the beginning to have zero impedance. The crossover now appears as a simple parallel LC network, with resonance tuned to the crossover frequency. For those who know what this means, the implication is obvious. For the remainder, we have a parallel tuned circuit, and with ideal components (no losses), its impedance is infinite at resonance! That means that at resonance, there is no damping whatsoever, and the "damping factor" is ... zero!
Quote:
What about moving further away from Xf ? Well, things improve, but not as much as you might expect or desire. At 2 octaves (500Hz and 8kHz), the parallel tuned circuit has an impedance of 3 ohms, so the DF is now ...

DF = Zspeaker / Zsource = 8 / 3 = 2.66

This is a far cry from the DF of between perhaps 50 to several hundred presented by the amplifier, and for many drivers may be unsatisfactory. Even at one decade (200Hz or 20kHz (i.e. 3.16 octaves either side of the XO frequency of 2kHz), the impedance is still 1.17 Ohms, giving a DF of only 6.8 - in a 3-way system, it is probable that the low-mid XO will be close by the 200Hz figure, and this will introduce even more problems!

In case you might be wondering, using a separate amplifier to drive each section of the crossover achieves exactly nothing. This arrangement is sometimes called "biamping" by those who know no better, but it is no such thing. I refer to it as "passive biamping" or "active biwiring". Whatever it may be called, it does nothing to fix the issues described, but it does add (needlessly IMO) to the cost and inconvenience of equipping your system.

Yet another excellent and thought-provoking article from the ESP site. I have to admit that at some level I was aware of these issues, but my own thinking vastly underestimated their severety.

The counterpoint is that issues like reduced driver damping due to high source impedances needed for spectral shaping are usually the domain of the speaker designer. This part of the speaker is usually minimum phase and if you get the frequency response right the rest falls into line. If situations like this make your head spin the logical response is easy and reasonably inexpensive - leave the speaker designing to speaker designers. The world is full of well-designed speakers. Much is lost in the interface with the room, and this is a fruitful area for the audiophile/system owner.
post #58 of 61
Belden is the big deal for Blue Jeans. I believe Neotech is the OEM manufacturer for Harmonic Tech, Audience, and probably quite a few others.
post #59 of 61
Thread Starter 
Fear and Loathing of AVRs.... I liked that crack!
I will reserve that upgrade for the distant future. For now, I will experiment with what I have. (Speakers are the next need)

Hey Arnyk, have you personally used the DEQ2496 (Ultra Curve) EQ? I'm reading about it and it looks real good. Some complain of overheating.
Question:
Would the Marantz Pm7001 paired with the DEQ2496 (Ultra Curve) give me the type of bass management or sound field settings that a modern AVR for about $800 would?
Wondering what fun I can have with a DEQ2496 basically.

Cables Arrived & Installed:
The blue jeans cables (Belden) really look good for what I'm doing. They look solidly built with good fundamentals.Thanks for the recommendations.
I can't say I notice a difference over the stock radio shack 15 year old stuff I had but at least I know I wasn't missing out on anything. (might be a bit louder but I can't really tell)
Thanks All!

@ NormP - The high end budget system is described in dollar terms for me to be like $1,000 - $1,500 2.1 channel.
As mcnarus pointed out, I don't want to afford to be more gullible than that....
post #60 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by matr2589 View Post

Fear and Loathing of AVRs.... I liked that crack!
I will reserve that upgrade for the distant future. For now, I will experiment with what I have. (Speakers are the next need)

Hey Arnyk, have you personally used the DEQ2496 (Ultra Curve) EQ? I'm reading about it and it looks real good. Some complain of overheating.
Question:
Would the Marantz Pm7001 paired with the DEQ2496 (Ultra Curve) give me the type of bass management or sound field settings that a modern AVR for about $800 would?
Wondering what fun I can have with a DEQ2496 basically.

Well you add a ECM 8000 mic to that DEQ 2496 and in its semi-automatic way it doesn't miss much of what a modern receiver does automatically. Fire up Room Eq Wizard on your PC and again if you learn the game you might beat YPAO, MCACC or Audyssey on a modern receiver.

Quote:
Cables Arrived & Installed:
The blue jeans cables (Belden) really look good for what I'm doing. They look solidly built with good fundamentals.Thanks for the recommendations.
I can't say I notice a difference over the stock radio shack 15 year old stuff I had but at least I know I wasn't missing out on anything. (might be a bit louder but I can't really tell)

Blue Jeans product looks like the audio equivalent of a Masonry Commode to me. ;-) Not that I haven't assembled similar things out of similar materials for my own use. Nobody is saying that they always sound better, but after you use one to pull your car out of a ditch, the Blue Jeans cable is probably going to sound better than any $5 cable from Monoprice after the same treatment. ;-)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › RCA Cable interconnects for a high end budget system