[Jens]

Hello All,

I am planning to build some U-byte speaker cables according to Jon Risch's concept.

From what I understand these cables should present no serious problems for my AKSA, since both L and C seem to be relatively moderate. (What say ye, sir Hugh?).

However, if anyone has any experience with these cables - adverse or otherwise - I would dearly love to know. I have managed to persuade the local Belden distributor to order a 100 feet roll of the Belden 89259 for me at a reasonable price (being teflon-insulated it does not come that cheap). I intend to use some for interconnects as well, but since my speaker system has an active bottom end with a separate amp, I'll need at least 3 runs for each speaker, so there probably won't be much left, when I've made the speaker cables - if I decide to make them for the whole system, that is.

It seems that there is a CAT5 virus on this forum, but so far I have unfortunately not been able to get hold of high-quality CAT5 cable with teflon insulation here. I do want to try that as well, so if anyone knows a good source of this cable in Europe, please let me know  

Cheers,

Jens

[Malcolm Fear]

We had a mini AKSAfest at my place a couple of weeks ago.
We were putting the 89259 (Jon Risch cross coupled recipe, beautifully made) against 8 strands of CAT5 (solid core, teflon coated).
The consensus was that the CAT5 was better than the 89259.
We also put CAT5 interconnects against 89259 interconnects. I think the 89259 may be better. We need to redo the test with interconnects.

Equipment used:
Rega Planet 2000 cd player
AKSA GK-1 pre amp
AKSA 55 watt power
Diatone full range speakers (92 db efficient, 16 ohm)
Kef 139 active sub woofer.

[SamL]

Hi Malcolm,
Glad to hear that the cat5 speaker sound better then Jon Risch's 89259.
I still have 20ft that I can use.
Is your 8 strands cats braided?
How do you wire them? Well, the cat5 come with 2 strands twisted. Did you wire one of this strands to positive and another to negative? Or you use this 2 twisted strands as positive and another 2 twisted strands as negative?

Sam

[Martin]

Hi all!
 I made a couple pair of 8 strand(4+/4-) of the cat5 teflon according to
Malcolm's specs and I have to say that they were an improvement
over the bare 4/14 OFC Kimber Cable I had been using. Highs & mids show
the most improvement whereas the bass seemed to tapper off a bit.
Perhaps another set of 4 (2+/2-) per channel. They have a 88dB efficiency.
Any recomendations Malcolm?
 My 16 year old daughter helped me braid...she ran circles around me.
She had a helpful hint...start the braid in the middle of the strands. When one
half is done, return to the middle and do second half. Braiding 3 to 5 ft of
wire is much easier than handeling 6 to 10 ft.
 Have a good one!
Martin

[Malcolm Fear]

Hi Sam.
I separate all of the twisted pairs in a length. This gives me 8 strands, 4 coloured, 4 white. I run my fingers up and down each strand to get some of the kinks out.
I take 2 white and two coloured. I braid these four strands together.
I do the same with the other 4 strands. I then have two sets of braids. I twist them loosely together.
I put all of the whites together for negative, and all of the colourds together for the positive.

[Malcolm Fear]

Hi Martin
Glad you like the CAT5. I am not sure of the bass response of the cable. I'm sure my Diatones only go down to 70 cycles, then the active sub woofer takes over.
I initially made 16 strands, but it started sounding "coarse". I went back to 8 and loved it. I don't think 16 is good for an AKSA power amp.
A friend has an AKSA 55 watt and Ambience ribbon hybrids. He has had no problem with the bass. He also found 16 strands weren't as good as 8.
Starting in the middle saves an awful lot of time.

[SamL]

Thanks Malcolm for the info.
I might try simple easier. Will double check my wire and migth try a 12 strands (6+, 6-) without seperating the twisted pair. Something like Chirs VH version. Or maybe I can try the 8 strands Gomer version....

Sam

[JohnR]

The consensus was that the CAT5 was better than the 89259.

Sad but true. (Sad for me anyway   )

In my system at home as well the CAT5 (Mal lent me some leads) is more open and livelier than the CC89259. Maybe I overdid it on the assembly. I dunno. The CC89259 was clearly better then the 8TC I used to have, when I compared it earlier. We're both using full-range drivers, I don't know if that can possibly be anything to do with it.

Anyway, due to the ready unavailability of CAT5E I'm planning to experiment some with magnet wire. It comes in all grades/cost, from wire that actually gets used for making transformers (cheap, www.hndme.com), continuous crystal blah de blah (percyaudio), to cryo'ed smiled-upon-by-virgins handle-with-kid-gloves wire to die for (chimeralabs).

 

[Larry]

The consensus was that the CAT5 was better than the 89259.

This seems contradictory to the general consensus of CAT5 and cross-connected coax at large. After having made cables from both designs and having done some comparsons, I believe that both of them are true, true under some conditions.

As the teflon coated cables are not conviniently available in Australia, I used normal CAT5e and air spaced satellite coax cables, based basically on TNT recipes.

I first made CAT5e cables. My impression was that it's good, upgrading from my comsumer cables (not those Hi-price cables from specialist shops.) On AKSA100N, it sounds good, in the areas of female voices, some high frequence solo passages like violin at high pitchs, piano at high keys or synthetic at high frequences. On my Ella tube amp, it sounds good, in areas of more presence of details, however, not very smooth at high frequences.

Then I made cross connected coax cables. It sounds very good on Ella tube amp. It opens the sound stage further and more air and seperation. The high is now clean with details. However, with AKSA100N, it no longer sounds as nice as CAT5e.

After listening to them and swapping among cables and amps etc, my impression is that CAT5e rolls off at the high frequences hence smooths the music at higher frequences while cross-connected coax preserves the music better.

The differences are more evident on my Ella tube amp. The differences in music can be described as: you can hear the chamber of violins with cross-connected coax while you can only hear the strings of violins with CAT5e; the female voices are more real with cross-connected coax while they are a bit synthetic with CAT5e.

My experience led me to believe that croos-connected coax is a very good cable that preserves the sound while CAT5e smooths high frequences a little bit . So the question is what do you want? A good cable by itself or a cable to compensate an amp?

In my case, the cross-connected coax has stayed in my system.

[JohnR]

Er.. um, well, Mal and I are both listening through our AKSAs... I don't think anyone claimed one is *always* better then the other, we're just saying what we heard. Also as Mal pointed out the construction makes a difference too.

I would have much preferred the 89259 came out better in the comparison, since I now have two "beautifully made" sets of them

So the question is what do you want? A good cable by itself or a cable to compensate an amp?

Oh, come on Larry! You're basing this on your *own* listening experience through a completely different amplifier! But that's the beauty of DIY, isn't it? You can try all this stuff for yourself in your own system

And, before Hugh pipes in I would just like to say that I agree that it's silly that cables produce so much audiophile angst, not to mention the bandwidth load on our server But... you hears what you hears...  

[audiojerry]

I am glad others have found that Kimber 8TC doesn't sound very good. I can't understand how it seems to be so widely used and liked.  It was so bad, it has biased my views against other Kimber models, and as a result I have never been interested in trying any of their higher priced  stuff.

[Jens]

Oh dear - I seem to have set off an avalanche here  (I thought I might with this topic)!

All your comments to my question are very enlightening - some even fun, thanks.

I suppose the effect of cables to some extent is dependent on the combination of amp and speaker, which may well account for some of the different opinions I seem to get here. I'll probably try both types in the end.

Two more questions for you, guys:

  Anyone ever compare either the U-byte or the CAT5 cables with any of the so-called high-end cables (you know, those expensive things they sell in the shops)  

  Anyone have any idea where to get CAT5 teflon cables in Europe (or by mail order to Europe)

Just keep all those good comments coming

Cheers,

Jens

P.S. Got the order confiirmation for the Belden 89259 today - should be here in a couple of weeks

[PSP]

Jens,
If you can't manage to get some Cat5 by other channels, I will be visiting Denmark (Arhus, actually) in early September.  I would be happy to get some Belden 1585A and throw it in my luggage... a simple coil of wire shouldn't get the security guys TOO excited, I hope.

So, please take a look at the Belden catalog, see if this is what you want.  Let me know how much wire you want, and how I can get it to you when I visit.  This is not ulta-expensive wire, so--while we will have to figure out the currency exchange somehow--it's not a huge concern.

If you want to proceed, please e-mail me privately to discuss details.  Please be sure to make your subject line not look like spam (putting AKSA in the subject line should do it).

Peter

[AKSA]

Hi Jens,

I apologize for not replying until now....

CAT5E is indeed the optimum choice for amp interconnections, arguably line level Interconnects, and it seems speaker cables.

I bought two rolls of 1585A natural color in the US recently through Paul, and now have it in Australia.  It has four twisted pairs of teflon coated solid copper enclosed within a thick plastic sheath, which for audio purposes is normally discarded.  I thus have enough for Aspen needs, and for limited use by others.

I will sell it for $AUD3 per metre.  This is about $US2 and around 1.75 Euro.  Retail price in the States is $US214 for a 300 metre roll. However, I am obliged to put a limit of 5m per customer on it, no more, otherwise I'll be cleaned out in no time and getting it to Australia is very costly.

Five metres can readily be sent in a padded bag, so P&P is not too costly.

Anyone who wants some, let me know by email, but PLEASE, not more than 5m per order!!

Cheers,

Hugh

[Malcolm Fear]

Hi Larry.

>>This seems contradictory to the general consensus of CAT5 and cross-connected coax at large
Ahh, but the "consensus people" are comparing CAT 5 using the UBYTE design, not loosely braided, using 8 individual strands.

The rest of your post then seems to deal with comparing "NOT" teflon coated CAT 5 cables against "NOT" 89259 cables and making a judgement that  89259 cables are better than CAT 5. Surely this is not a valid judgement.

A couple of years ago, Vic made up some cross coupled cables using air cored satellite cable (not 89259). They were good.
I made up some CAT5 cables using the U-Byte recipe (not using teflon coated). They were pretty good, not as good as the cross coupled cables.
We both replaced our cables (mine were old Audioquest, Vic's were Monster Cables). I was chuffed that I had made DIY cables. At that point, we agreed that any old cross coupled was better than any old CAT 5.

But the problem was that we both were not using the "correct" cable to begin with.

I then read about the Chimera cable. Very interesting reading. I took on board the methods of using it (loosely braiding a few individual wires).

I purchased some teflon coated solid core CAT 5 from Rat Shack, when I was on holiday in USA.

I then made up 16 strands of teflon coated solid core CAT 5 (unwinding all of the pairs, braiding 4 strands together (4 times) then braiding the 4 braids together. It was a lot better than the cross coupled cable and the PVC coated CAT 5.

Three of us then went thirds in a 1000 foot roll from USA. We were very happy with the results.

I then went fom 16 strands down to 8. It was even better (removed some grain), but this is probably an AKSA (capacitance) thing. If 16 is good and 8 is better, then let's try 4. 4 sounded weaker. It appears that 8 strands is optimal (no, I haven't tried 12 or 14).

I had the opportunity to audition the "real" 89259 cross couple cables of John R. The consensus is that the 8 strand solid core, teflon coated CAT 5 is better than the "real" 89259.

Turning to amp/speaker combinations, Vic and I both have Nirvana AKSA 55 power amps. My speakers are Diatone full range with an active sub woofer, Vic has Ambience ribbon hybrids. Ambience speakers have an impedance of 6 ohm and are about 86 db efficient. They go very high, they go very low. They are very nice.
The Diatones are paper coned 6 inch speakers, impedance of 16 ohm, about 92 db efficient. They go highish (probably better than my 57 year old ears), they do not go low (down to about 70 hz). They also sound very nice.
Whatever experiments we have done, we always seem to agree. We both prefer 8 strands to 16 in both systems, we both prefer any old cross coupled speaker leads to any old CAT 5, we both prefer 8 strands of teflon coated CAT 5 to anything else that we have tried etc. The bass is very good using 8 strand (listening to the Ambience). I can't comment on the Diatones (they have no real bass).

For the Chimera stuff, have a look at
http://home.att.net/~chimeraone/audiocable.html

[AKSA]

Hi Folks,

I could resist it no longer.........

Larry wrote this:

My experience led me to believe that croos-connected coax is a very good cable that preserves the sound while CAT5e smooths high frequences a little bit . So the question is what do you want? A good cable by itself or a cable to compensate an amp?

Could I suggest a little hard physics here?  

A tube amp, yea, even the Ella, has an output transformer.  Whilst tubes generally have excellent frequency response, OPTs do not, and it's a very good one that doesn't lose something at the top end.  To partly offset this we need very good speaker cables, no question.

SS amps, on the other hand, have no such reactive lump in their output stage, and can be made with stratospheric HF response.  Normally, they have to be held back so that they don't present hapless speakers with modulated RF, which quickly destroys them, and sometimes output stages too!

We are describing a complex electroacoustic system.  All and every means possible must be used to tune this entire system for human hearing.  If CAT5E does 'smooth the high frequencies a bit' (and I cannot measure any such effect, backed up by it's 350MHz data rating!) then maybe this is OK, but it's clearly unsuitable for a tube amp which needs no such treatment because of its output transformer.

Anecdotal information is de rigeur in hifi.  What you must seek out, however, is trends, and this is only possible over a large sample.  If you build one amp and notice an anomaly, you would normally verify it by building another, and checking if that anomaly is repeated.  If so, you build a third, verify it a third time, and then you look long and hard at the design and implementation.  Larry, this is certainly not easy (or cheap!), and there is no way I would decry your results as they are definitely relevant (I'm sorry I sent you that CAT5E!!) but you are being a little tough here!

Time for a little indulgence.  Today I received a very nice accollade from Dennis Traeger, a grandson of one Alfred Traeger of South Australia, who in the 1920s invented the pedal radio for the Flying Doctor Service, an Air Ambulance organization pioneered by the Rev John Flynn.  This opened up communications in the outback of Australia, and Dennis is justly proud of his forbear, who was an intensely technical man.

Here's what Dennis said about his AKSA 100W Nirvana Monoblocks(thanks Dennis, exquisitely made!):

As for their performance,  first the obvious black & white stuff.
1)They worked perfectly from first turn on, even with my 2nd pair of Vaf Speakers (DC7's) I could hear they were a great amp in the first few seconds of listenning.
2) Absolutely no noise can be heard at idle - no hum, no transister noise, no nothing, with my ear right against the bass, mid & tweeter of the Vaf I-93's.  (I hope the layout /shielding & keeping the transformers & 240v well away from the signal input helped this as well).
3)Even driving the I-93's to huge dB's with absolutely no distortion & low bass tracks (+- 1.2db at 20 HZ) the heatsinks are dead cold.

The subjective/listenning tests.

I have had some rather expensive transistor (Krell, Naim Monoblocks, Metaxas) & valve amps ($20k) in my lounge room with the I-94s and the Aksas are IMO better in most areas than any of these amps. Initially the only amp I thought might have a fraction more control of bass was the Metaxas. All this changed after a weeks run in however and experimenting with higher bias(have settled on 62mv).

These amps are fast, have all the tingle up top, plenty of bass control and impressive in the most critical mid range band (female vocals, sax, guitar, cello etc).

I spent a day in Vaf Research listenning to the acclaimed Halcro amps ($50k for 2) with my speakers.  Although it's impossible to compare, I am enjoying the Aksa's more at home using the same tracks I put through the Halcro's that day.

Dennis also added that he had noticed some bad press for the AKSA on Australian Hifi Newsgroups, and was disappointed by the tone of the criticism.  Ah, but, what can we expect?  We always sharply criticize our own in this fair land!!  
 

Cheers,

Hugh

[Larry]

There are certain orders of effects in cables as well. I believe the following orders make sense to me, when all of them are reasonally decent:

1) cable geometry and wiring scheme, including lengths;
2) conductor materials;
3) dielectric materials.

If the amp designs have some theories, the cables are more based on listening experiences. (I remember when I was in university, a lot students failed the subject of Electromagnetic Field and Wave Theory, but few failed the Circuit Theroy.) If I do try to explain some observations, CAT5e braided cables have higher capacitance than cross-connected coax cables so that it's not surprise to me if CAT5e braided cables roll off a little bit at high frequences, comparing to cross-connected coax cables.

More general info on these two DIY speaker cable designs can be found on TNT or  Jon Risch's web.  According to them, generally cross-connected coax performes better than CAT5 braided cables as speaker cables. If people prefer a smooth sound, CAT5e could be their favourite. I am a guy preferring accuracy and believe the sweetness of the sound should come from the source, not from amps or cables. I think I have no problem with people's tastes (that's why I listen to people who have various opinions; unless the power wiring is wrong in that case it is a really hard part of physics where no ill-posed subjectism is possible.) and I look at things with a open mind, and in a postive way, which makes me always happy and easygoing with different opinions.

I first tried the CAT5e cables of 1.5m long years back in my home theater and it did not get me excited, until I built a longer one of about 6m in my stereo system to replace a speaker cable by Van den Hul (but not their expensive models). The cross-connected coax I comparied with is also about 6m long. In order to see the effects of cables themselves, I believe it's necessary to substitute the amps as well, as cables could create some synergy with the amp in the system, in other words, compensating each other.  Logically speaking, if A>B on x and A>B on y, it's more reliable to say A>B than to say A>B when A>B only on x. If people are interested in the combined performance of cables in a particular system, they don't have to change other components in the system, the observation only apply to that system setup.  In this case, as I said earlier, CAT5e sounds smoother with AKSA100N. If smooth sound is preferred, I pretty agree that CAT5e could be preferred over cross-connected coax with AKSAs. That's why I said both of the consensus makes sense to me but be ware of the applicability. My experience is just in the line with it. Putting it clearer again, I think CAT5e renders a smooth sound (some people may prefer) while cross-connected coax renders a more accurate sound with low level details that may be perceived as better soundstage, air and instrument separations (Maybe these attributions are not exact), which are the same on both Ella tube amp and AKSA100N I have tested but at different grades.

[Larry]

If so, you build a third, verify it a third time, and then you look long and hard at the design and implementation. ... but you are being a little tough here!

Does anyone who makes comments related to AKSAs need to build three ASKAs before sharing their opinions? I think this requirement is really "a little tough here"  

(I'm sorry I sent you that CAT5E!!)

Can you elaborate a bit what this means and how this relates to the topic of the discussions?

[Larry]

making a judgement that  89259 cables are better than CAT 5. Surely this is not a valid judgement.

Did I make such judgement at all? Can you point it to me where I made it?

[AKSA]

Larry,

I sent you 8 metres of CAT5E about four days back in a padded bag.

Have you received it?

Cheers,

Hugh