I'm pretty sure the LS3/5a was designed as a speech monitor so wide frequency range, bass response, dynamic range would not really be a requirement. I'm sure there are far better small bookshelf speakers for music. The AVI Neutrons I have are decent. I suspect the modern incarnations (like those Rogers I mentioned earlier at around £2.5k) have little in common with the original spec. If they do, they are way overpriced.
The review and measurements correlate very well to other versions of the LS3/5A
@somafunk not according to your link
I’m pretty sure the LS3/5a was designed as a speech monitor
you would be wrong then !
It was designed as a miniature two-way loudspeaker of adequate sound quality and loudness to serve as a monitor in conditions where larger existing designs would be unusable, where space was at a premum and where headphones would not be considered satisfactory, like TV production-control rooms as well as OB vans.
If you total up the expenditure on this design, and the acoustic scaling modelling work that it was based on, it's very probable that there hasn't been another speaker since that has cost so much!
It says 'adequate sound quality' but the original prototype versions built at Kingswood Warren were slightly different and achieved higher performance, using thinner walled cabinets with screwed on backs, more like other BBC monitors, where the cabinet was supposssed to be 'lossy' to help control resonances. They also had higher quality crossovers with careful component matching.
The versions I use are more akin to these, with modern drivers that are much more performant, and with much higher quality crossovers that achieve significantly lower THD levels, so whereas the LS3/5a was a grade 2 monitor, mine are more akin to a grade 1, especially with the AB-2 bass extenders.
I expected it to make no difference and when it did spent ages switching back and forth trying to convince myself that there was no difference
Which is why I said "double blind."
Get someone else to do the switching (or not switching) whilst you're blindfolded, see if you can still tell them apart reliably.
Yep, that’s the standard response I was expecting.
Do you perform double blind testing when you buy a new cartridge for your record deck, for example. Or any new component, like a DAC. How can you trust your ears that it does actually sound better, seeing that you spent more money on it and so have subconscious bias? Do you have a sound meter to ensure that comparisons are done at the same volume? When you go to a shop for a HiFi demo do you wear a blindfold and ban the sales person from speaking, lest his vocal inclinations hint at which component he has swapped in?
As I say the changes weren’t subtle and I had no expectation bias other than expecting there to be no difference - which is the opposite of normal ‘expectation bias’.
I spent time trying to prove that I was experiencing a bias and that there was no actual difference, and was dismayed at the prospect that my sensible and well engineered Quad amps where actually not as good as I hoped they might be.
My first job was at BBC Research Department, where I bought my first LS3/5as with my staff discount, so I had been exposed to ‘planted’ engineers that also didn’t believe in cables and speaker stands, and I had read many of the BBC papers on loudspeaker design that were in the library there. So that’s the viewpoint I was coming from.
The Quad 707 problem was similar to a bad case of wiring speakers out of phase - as I was using external crossovers there were multiple places I could make mistakes so obviously I took care. Are you telling me that hearing speakers out of phase is not something that is immediately apparent?
All of the changes I described weren’t subtle. In contrast if I change my 2.5mm stranded cable for the Nordost flatline cable the sound seems sharper to me - this is a subtle change and not something I would swear to without a double blind test. That could easily be expectation bias.
you would be wrong then !
I stand corrected. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, perhaps based on the spec (wasn't the frequency response required something like 400-20kHz?).
I might have missed it, but there's one reason that I wouldn't use the Amazon basics cable; It's Copper Coated Aluminium (CCA), not copper. It's measurably less conductive, so might not give the same output as a copper cable.
In reality, as has been said over and over, you'll probably never notice. FWIW, I use 'Kabeldirect' cable from Amazon, which is OFC, true to size and well priced.
When you go to a shop for a HiFi demo do you wear a blindfold and ban the sales person from speaking, lest his vocal inclinations hint at which component he has swapped in?
When I bought my last stack I took a mate and, as I mentioned earlier, we spent several hours with a stack of kit in their audition room. We'd take turns to swap kit around whilst the other wasn't watching. Some changes were noticeable as you say, some not. Technics/Marantz DVD drives sounded noticeably 'bright' to a point of being harsh, for reasons I cannot logically explain. We could both reliably detect when the in-the-box phono cables were used, but couldn't tell any difference between any of the upgraded interconnects regardless of price points.
I might have missed it, but there’s one reason that I wouldn’t use the Amazon basics cable; It’s Copper Coated Aluminium (CCA), not copper. It’s measurably less conductive, so might not give the same output as a copper cable.
AIUI electricity flows down the outside of a wire, not through its core. It shouldn't matter I don't think.
AIUI electricity flows down the outside of a wire, not through its core. It shouldn’t matter I don’t think.
Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that CCA cables have significantly lower conductivity than OFC. Especially as the lengths get longer. proper conductors are made of copper, not aluminium.
Will you ever notice a difference? Unlikely, unless you're using long runs and undersized wire, but it cannot carry the same current as OFC for the same cross section, and could result in less power to your speakers.
Indeed, but that doesn’t change the fact that CCA cables have significantly lower conductivity than OFC.
I generally buy what I would call 'proper' OFC speaker cable... but the price difference is negligible, so the amazon stuff, is maybe technically sub-standard at 60p per meter.
You can buy pure copper cable with maybe better sheathing & strand count for twice the price, at a staggering £1-2 per meter.
I'd draw the line at much more 'per meter' than that though.
I certainly wouldn'y buy speaker cable for £6 or more per meter.
Will you ever notice a difference? Unlikely
There we go then. 😁
I generally buy what I would call ‘proper’ OFC speaker cable… but the price difference is negligible, so the amazon stuff, is maybe technically sub-standard at 60p per meter.
You can buy pure copper cable with maybe better sheathing & strand count for twice the price, at a staggering £1-2 per meter.
I’d draw the line at much more ‘per meter’ than that though.
I certainly wouldn’y buy speaker cable for £6 or more per meter.
Agreed with all of that. I'd probably buy the same. But really it's splitting hairs over the sorts of distances we're talking about across a living room. People are dropping hundreds if not thousands on A/V components and then we're agonising over a differential of ten quid on a cable reel?
Here's a thought. There's a psychological benefit to not buying the cheapest, it gives you a nice fuzzy feeling that you're using something "good." But if we're budgeting say £1.20/m rather than 60p/m on an upgraded cable, is that money better spent on OFC or a thicker gauge CCA cable? If the argument is it being nicer to work with at a practical level then OFC is 100% a no-brainer; if the reasoning is that there will be impaired audio reproduction quality due to the cable's impedance then it's a nonsense, they're all going to sound identical.
I agree.
There we go then. 😁
???
I even said that in my first post? You tried to pick holes in a fact, and then went on to agree with my point, after implying that you disagreed with me? I even gave a recommendation for a cable at £1.50/m.
Odd.
You said you'd reject a cable for no practical reason other than a belief that another was somehow 'better' for no practical reason.
I probably would - and indeed have - done the same. But it's difficult to defend.
Then read my posts again.
" It’s measurably less conductive, so might not give the same output as a copper cable."
"...the fact that CCA cables have significantly lower conductivity than OFC. Especially as the lengths get longer...
...unless you’re using long runs and undersized wire, but it cannot carry the same current as OFC for the same cross section, and could result in less power to your speakers."
The caveats ^^^ are relating to the cross section or cable and amplifier power, but speakers are low impedance so you want your cable to be as low as possible so as not to waste power. There is no 'Somehow' and there is a practical reason - power loss.
Cambridge Audio have a balanced view on this; https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/speaker-cables
It seems to be a common misunderstanding, perhaps based on the spec (wasn’t the frequency response required something like 400-20kHz?).
yes, here's a link to the design paper :
It says that they found that the response was actually fairly uniform down to 100Hz.
At the heart of it, the REAL pleasure of HiFi, is arguing with people on the internet who are wrong!
I would have thought an 'argument' is a disagreement between two different opinions on something. A lot of claims about hi-fi stuff, especially cables and interconnects, are simply nonsense, So stating facts correcting such claims isn't actually 'arguing', I'd argue.
I learned many years ago, that fretting about things like bits of wire is pointless as it makes (generally) absolutely no difference to the actual quality of sound. And having actually done some proper blind tests, I have concluded that it is really not worth me spending more than a few quid on any wires. But I tend to listen to people like sound engineers, and real scientists, rather than audiophiles.
I might have missed it, but there’s one reason that I wouldn’t use the Amazon basics cable; It’s Copper Coated Aluminium (CCA), not copper. It’s measurably less conductive, so might not give the same output as a copper cable.
In reality, as has been said over and over, you’ll probably never notice
I don't think the OP is all that bothered. That cable will be fine for a few metres; there won't be any real noticeable loss power or signal with such cable. If anything; actual cheap copper wire might even be better in that regard. As before; I used many metres of 'bell wire' as Richer sounds call it, to wire up some speakers in a large workshop. Just so we could have some sounds while we all worked. I wasn't going to be spending pounds per metre; would have ended up costing more than what the actual stereo equipment was worth! It was fine; we could crank it up enough to 'party levels' whenever we wanted.
Silver cable? A waste of silver. Better off using it for jewellery.
spent an entire day in Richer doing the same thing and came to the opposite conclusion. There was little to no difference between (analogue) interconnect cables, except from the bundled 99p phono cables which were truly dogshit.
Some of the cheapo bundled cables can be really poor quality. But more for the connection to the connector bit than the actual wire itself. But others are ok. I discovered the other day that the interconnect between by streamer DAC and the amp, is just the bundled black wire interconnect I got with it. I've swapped it for one of my old Cambridge Audio posh ones, but I've noticed no difference in sound quality. And my optical cable from my CD player is just the thin thing that came with a MiniDisc player or something many years ago. The only difference between that and posh ones is thicker plastic sheathing.
It's not like higher frequency /lower power signals where you need coax or twisted pairs, but you still want to avoid separating the wires. But you still want to avoid the chance that you can induce a signal into one of the wires, not both. If both are together (coax/twisted pair) then anything you induce in one is in both and won't be heard at the speaker.
You can get some nice looking speaker cables already terminated on AliExpress.
Some of their RCA cables are decent too for the price.
I'm still using the What HIFI winning cable from.... Think it was '97. Cable Talk - Talk3.1 in both my systems though.
Then read my posts again.
None of that matters if it sounds the same. Does it sound the same? You said yourself "Will you ever notice a difference? Unlikely, unless you’re using long runs and undersized wire"
Normal speakers have an impedance of 8 Ohms (I once had some Pro Logic era surrounds which were 16). That Amazon Basics cable is 16 AWG which Cambridge's chart you linked to lists as 14.8m max cable run. How big is your living room?
You might well be technically correct, but if you're sitting listening to music whilst worrying that your 100W speakers might only be capable of delivering 99.9999W due to cable impedance then I'd respectfully suggest that you reconsider your priorities here. Besides, absolutely no-one other than a shit pub DJ drives gear anywhere near its limits anyway.
Well - this is jolly - I do hope the OP just ended up using Door Bell Wire! 🙂
Unbelievably, this thread has turned up about a week before I need to buy new speaker cable. Hurrah! Sounds like Amazon Basic is good enough, QED silver if I want to go upmarket with unclear benefits.
My question: my speakers are bi-wired (Kef Q1s, nothing special) at the speaker end and single-wired at the amp end. Tbh at this point the speakers are biwired cause I've lost the bit that bridged the terminals, not because I actually believe it's better.
Is there a 4-wire version of the Amazon Basic/ QED silver?
Cheers
You can just use speaker cable to bridge the terminals.
Yeah do that.
You can buy bi wire cable (4 into 2) or just 4 stuck together but it's a bit of a rip off.
None of that matters if it sounds the same. Does it sound the same? You said yourself <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000;">“Will you ever notice a difference? Unlikely, unless you’re using long runs and undersized wire”
Normal speakers have an impedance of 8 Ohms (I once had some Pro Logic era surrounds which were 16). That Amazon Basics cable is 16 AWG which Cambridge’s chart you linked to lists as 14.8m max cable run. How big is your living room?
You might well be <em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000;">technically correct, but if you’re sitting listening to music whilst worrying that your 100W speakers might only be capable of delivering 99.9999W due to cable impedance then I’d respectfully suggest that you reconsider your priorities here. Besides, absolutely no-one other than a shit pub DJ drives gear anywhere near its limits anyway.
This is all just common sense, and ignoring it is pretty foolish really. I'm glad to see such common sense in a discussion about hi-fi, it's often something that's missing. That Cambridge Audio chart is interesting; apparently 'bell wire' would be fine for up to 3.6m into standard 8 Ohm speakers. I used something like 16 awg for long, 10m+ runs without any issue. So spending more than a quid or two on speaker cable for the average home, is pointless.
Unbelievably, this thread has turned up about a week before I need to buy new speaker cable. Hurrah! Sounds like Amazon Basic is good enough, QED silver if I want to go upmarket with unclear benefits.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';" />My question: my speakers are bi-wired (Kef Q1s, nothing special) at the speaker end and single-wired at the amp end. Tbh at this point the speakers are biwired cause I’ve lost the bit that bridged the terminals, not because I actually believe it’s better.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';" />Is there a 4-wire version of the Amazon Basic/ QED silver?
I've personally found bi-wiring pointless if you're coming from the same amp; perhaps if you have some really high end exotic speakers, you might hear a difference. I don't know. I tried it on some B+W DM601s, and it made no noticeable (to me) difference. So you're fine just wring up both sets of terminals with a bit of spare cable as suggested. Where bi-wiring does come into its own, is with bi-amping. My tests with the same set of speakers proved this theory. More clearly defined separation of frequencies. But my current speakers are not bi-wireable, and still sound better. It's all about how good the speaker crossovers and your amps are.
As for cable; the Amazon basics stuff is fine, unless you want pure copper cable, then something around a quid a metre will be more than adequate. As for silver; see my comment above regarding jewellery.
Is there a 4-wire version of the Amazon Basic
Yes, just buy twice as much. 😁
As per the previous respondents, I wouldn't bother. Certainly if your amp output is only single-wired, you're effectively bridging the poles using two really long pieces of wire rather than short ones.
It’s all about how good the speaker crossovers and your amps are.
That's just jogged my memory. The whole point of bi-wiring - aside from selling yet more expensive shit - as that you're moving the crossover. Ie, you're offloading the role of hi/lo signal separation to your amp(s) rather than your speakers. It's not a world apart from the external DAC argument or even having DVD/BD players doing upscaling rather than the TV. So in this specific instance there's absolutely no reason to bi-wire. (Could it provide a larger footprint for interference even?)
That aside, I don't know about anyone else but I'd have thought that the people best positioned to work out optimal speaker crossover settings is the speaker manufacturer.
The whole point of bi-wiring – aside from selling yet more expensive shit – as that you’re moving the crossover. Ie, you’re offloading the role of hi/lo signal separation to your amp(s) rather than your speakers
bi-wiring does not do that. There is a single output from the amp, fed over 2 pairs of cables to the speaker.
bi-amping provides 2 signals to the speaker, but it still does not move the crossover. Both signals are theoretically identical, and certainly have the full range of signal. The speaker then runs both through separate crossovers and filters which bit of the signal goes to which driver
That Spendor guy did tell me once what the technical difference was that occurred with biwiring.
I’ve forgotten what he said it was, but he also said that it was extremely unlikely that the speaker designer had ‘voiced’ the speaker with it biwired, so if biwiring makes a sonic difference (I heard it on some Roger’s LS7ts once), then it is likely to be the less correct solution sonically anyway.
Bi-wiring 🤣🤣🤣
Another pile of ‘HiFi’ nonsense.
Given the connections on my 2 pairs of speakers with bi-wiring options it looks like removing the bar between the terminals and doubling up on speaker cable would connect 1 pair of speaker cables to the high filter and the other pair of cables to the low filter.
So I replace a couple of bars that carry the signal between the H-L terminals with long lengths of cable. 🤔
This is likely to result in … no difference at all.
Similar with bi-amping. Only reason to do that would be to get more power into the speakers. But just get a bigger amp, or two if you want separate left and right amps?
at this point the speakers are biwired cause I’ve lost the bit that bridged the terminals, not because I actually believe it’s better.
Er, rather than using entire extra lengths of cable why didn’t you just stick a core of 2.5mm CSA mains cable between them? Or a short length of speaker cable?
How would you come to lose them, even? The only reason to undo both pairs of terminals, thus making loss of the connecting clip physically possible at all, is if you were bi-wiring in the first place.
I do hope the OP just ended up using Door Bell Wire
If it’s solid core bell wire it does OK. 50V 3A? Worked fine on surround speakers and simple integrated stereo systems for me. Not as ‘cool’ as magic oxygen-free ukicorn hair cable. Carries a signal fine.
Though the silvered multi-strand does maintain signal integrity well. Especially in dissonant classical pieces 😏
1
prettygreenparrot
Full Member
at this point the speakers are biwired cause I’ve lost the bit that bridged the terminals, not because I actually believe it’s better.Er, rather than using entire extra lengths of cable why didn’t you just stick a core of 2.5mm CSA mains cable between them? Or a short length of speaker cable?
Because I didn't think of it, alright! I'm a numpty!! 😀
They were originally biwired cause the hifi store (somewhere in Chalk Farm IIRC) suggested it when I bought the system some 20 years ago
Do a search on Ebay for "bi-wire jumpers" and there are lots of options if you want to spend money!
I tried the bell-wire speaker cable years ago when I got my first proper hifi but 79 strand type stuff was clearly better, but that 2.5mm Van Damme stuff is good enough and the run short enough to just buy some and close this thread. Make some jumpers from this cable, or just strip it back further and connect across the two terminals.
Because I didn’t think of it, alright! I’m a numpty!! 😀
I wouldn’t say so. The problem with HiFi is that all the smoke and mirrors makes it confusing. It’s a feature not a bug 😀
Van Damme is quality cable and the 1.5mm or 2.5mm will do you for anything (including making a jumper).
Bi-wiring does nothing useful, and even bi-amping doesn’t do anything you can’t achieve more conveniently by using a single amp with twice the power.
It’s only relevant for speakers with no internal passive crossover, where you’d use an active line-level crossover before a dedicated amp for each driver (amplifying only the relevant band, not the full-range signal).
You mostly find that in PA speakers or studio monitors, but some hi-fi speakers are fully active too (electronic crossovers and amplifiers built into the speakers). I’d buy some PMC or Kii active speakers if I ever find myself with significantly more money than sense.
I wouldn’t, under any circumstances, argue the toss with the Quad crew! If anyone is going to know what cable works with high-end kit, they will.
I don’t get that, as Quad gear is mid-range stuff in the hifi sphere of pricing, and people that buy it are generally not the audiophile cable/tube rolling types of people.
Yeah, well, that might be the case now, but when I discovered Quad gear, the sort of stuff I was comparing it with was cheap chipboard tower systems! This is a pair of electrostatic ESL-57’s that the brother of my best mate had, early 1970’s. Perhaps you might like to check out what sort of audio systems were available 50 years ago.
Perhaps you might like to check out what sort of audio systems were available 50 years ago.
Can only stretch to about 40ish, first hifi demo was 38 years ago, bought Quad, Rogers, Manticore, Nakamichi, Hitachi (tuner), rejected Audiolab and Musical Fidelity.
