Speaker cables: asked 100 times and never fully answered
Posted by: feeling_zen on 20 October 2015
The topic of non Naim speaker cable compatibility and the risks associated with a mismatch have, I know, been discussed to death on the forum. But after searching through all the historical posts one thing is clear, there hasn't been a good technical answer on the parameters of compatibility. In case the point of this post isn't clear, let me state now this is purely about compatibility and not quality or cable recommendations.
Naim's statement on their website is clear:
If you wish to use other brands of speaker cable, they need to be of similar specification and definitely not of high capacitance, or of the ‘Litz’ type, as these can cause instability or damage to your Naim amplifier.
Current spec is rated as
Resistance: 9 milli ohms
Capacitance: 16pF/m
Inductance: 1uH/m
But actually this doesn't tell us much, if anything, meaningful. "High capacitance" is not value and "similar specification" is not a range of values.
For example, NACA5 is rated at 16pF/m for capacitance and I am using 5m runs Atlas Hyper 2.0 at 74pF/m from a 250.2. So that is several magnitudes higher which is a bad thing. Or is it? As mentioned, "low capacitance" has not been defined and for all we know, in their design parameters anything lower than 150pF/m (to pluck a number out of the air) is "low". Similarly, we also don't know the minimum values allowing the cable to present the power amps with the expected load. Tellurium Q Black has a low capacitance of 4pF/m which could be good or equally bad on a short run - we don't know.
The above argument has so far been simplified since the meaningful numbers here are the total over the length of the cable but everyone has been getting hung up on the cable specs itself. A 50cm run of NACA5 or a 50m run of the same is likely to present just as unstable load to a Naim amp as a 3.5m run of a totally unsuitable cable. Similarly, a "seemingly" unsuitable cable of sufficiently sort or long runs may present the correct load.
Does anyone know the actual metric Naim use for determining the operating parameters? I know some people have contacted Naim about a specific cable and been told things like "should work" or "an extra metre and you're okay". Knowing the minimum and maximum values for the load as a whole, rather than the cable specification, would go a long way to helping people choose cables that are technically compatible. Regardless of how good or crap they might sound.
If no one knows I might try and get Naim to clarify this.
Richard Dane originally posted:
"BigH, all I can hear is the echo of Nigel Tufnel;
It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black".
- Nice one.
However, it's strange how people seem to have very different attitudes to certain types of product.
A number of people have posted some quite amusing responses about the TQ range of cables and interconnects. As an owner of TQ products, I admit that I find the posts quite amusing, if at times a little irritating. I guess that's the intention, and we all need to be big enough to take the heat.
However, I guess that behind some of the posts there is an assumption that those of us who have bought the products are deluded, and that the products themselves are wholly marketing hype and nothing more. I certainly wouldn't hold that view of the 'Super' Lumina, cables or indeed the 'Super' Nait or 'Super'Uniti amps just because of the marketing slant. Names just don't matter. I can assure you, I didn't buy my TQ cables because of any marketing hype or because of the use of the word 'Ultra'. I had an extended home trial over a period of weeks before plumping for my own cables. Mind you, if they bring out a 'Super Black' or 'Super Ultra Black', then I might just be tempted.
Whether or not anyone else would view them as favourably as I do is an entirely subjective matter, and it may well be that many would not find them a good match for Naim kit. They do certainly sound different from my previous cables (or indeed any other cables I have tried) for better or worse. I do think that the cost of the high end TQ cables (and there are significantly more expensive ones in the range than the ones I have purchased) cannot possibly be justified. However, I would apply this logic to the Super Lumina cables as well, or indeed the top end of any of the other manufacturers' ranges.
Still, I see that not many people here seem to be using the cheapest options for speaker cable (for example, mains wire), so there must be some perceived benefit from going 'up-market' a little.
My own particular incredulity (and associated sarcasm) with respect to Hi-Fi, is the use of expensive Ethernet or other digital cables (and yes, TQ makes them as well), spending huge amounts of money on hi-fi stands, obsessing over things like cable dressing, turntable set-up and the specific positioning of individual pieces of hi-fi equipment in hi-racks.
Yes - each to our own.
By the way, I did some time ago buy in to the 'hype' for the Chord Hugo DAC for use with my ND5XS on my second system. Luckily for me, the Hugo more or less lived up to the hype. However, in my opinion, the addition of TQ Ultra Black in my main system has resulted in an equivalent improvement.
But I still can't bring myself to audition an audiophile digital cable (made by TQ or not). That would just be be a step too far.