|
New member Username: AarrdPost Number: 1 Registered: Oct-11 | Hi all, can somebody tell me the best way to connect my Wharfedale SW150 subwoofer to my NAD 320. The manual recommends 2 ways of doing this: 1/ split the preamp out to the line in via a "Y" splitter with one cable going to the NAD main amp and the other going to the sub line in. 2/ take the preamp line out to the sub line in and then line out from the sub back into the NAD main amp. My question, is a "Y" splitter with 3.5m of cable (solution 1) better than feeding the main amp with 7m of hi fi cable (solution 2)? I know there will be some deterioration in the signal either way. So which gives you the best sound quality? Any help much appreciated, Swen |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16893 Registered: May-04 | . I'd go with the splitter. The cable quality running to a subwoofer which is only outputting signals beneath 100Hz is not as important the main in cable. I would, however, invest in a better than Radio Shack grade splitter. http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AQFLX%2DXMF . |
|
New member Username: AarrdPost Number: 3 Registered: Oct-11 | Thanks Jan, for your quick response. I am interested in what you think of this solution:/xhk405.htmlhttp://www.hifix.co.uk/sub-woofer-leads/ixos/xhk405.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16896 Registered: May-04 | . They'll certainly work for your application. Personally, I'm not a fan of all this BS super heavy looking, gold plated this and that connectors and cables. IMO all they accomplish is to muck up the sound while playing to the "bigger is better"', "shiny-er is better" male mindset which is largely uninformed about what makes for a good cable. I prefer minimal connectors and just enough copper to get the job done properly. Construction details are far more important to quality sound than is the outward physical appearance. But, if you don't know what to look for, then you buy what you like the looks of and alot of hifi products have been sold the same way. Audio connections should have a termination of 75 Ohms for the best signal transfer between components - assuming, that is, the equipment designers have properly done their job. And there's no real guarantee of that in most cases. Most of the audio jewellery being sold today has nothing like 75 Ohm terminations. The hunky looking connectors are designed for physical attraction to an uninformed buyer. By creating non-standard connectors both the equipment and the cable designer intentionally throws away sound quality for sales numbers and profits. I can't tell you whether the pieces you linked to are designed properly or not since no cable manufacturer seems willing to provide the most basic specifications on their products. Instead we get meaningless gobbledy gook about what they have cooked up to make their cable more sellable to the uninformed buyer. Dielectrics (insulation) do not have to be gigantic to perform well, quite the opposite is usually true. But this too is a selling feature rather than a sound quality issue. Dielectrics do affect the sound quality, not by how thick they are but by how well they are chosen and how little they take away or affect the signal. The cables you linked to would be OK for what you are doing with the gear you are using. I don't have a clue which cables might actually be more to my liking and I don't have the time to go looking through each manufacturer's line. I would warn you about connectors which are literally too tight for many component's back panel and the result is damage to the equipment. Check your NAD back panel for the sort of connectors used. If you do not see individual RCA jacks with nuts on each connector, then you have a group of connectors attached by way of a single board into which the connectors are press fit and only the two ends of the board have a rivet type connection point with the chassis/back panel. If this is what you see on the back of your NAD, then be careful of oversized connectors which can grip too tightly and pull connectors out of that board when you make re-connections. Individual jacks and nuts are the best type of connector but they are seldom found on budget priced components. The solid, one piece "Y" connector style you link to is preferred but that again is open to discussion regarding quality of construction. For $15, what you selected will work and you are unlikely to discern real differences in such a short length of cable unless your ears are very attuned to slight differences between two examples of the same sound. But be careful of over zealous connectors which might damage your gear. A tight fit is best but an overly tight fit can lead to a repair bill. If you want my opinion, look for connectors with minimal materials and not so thick cables which are insulated in Teflon. The cables and connectors need not be the size of your wrist. Less is more here IMO. Quite honestly, ignore most of the sales BS terms used. Twisted pairs or parallel runs are both good design choices though they eah offer a different result when it comes down to the electrical effects they will impart to the signal. PVC insulation is inferior to Teflon but Teflon is more expensive. Braided sets and high quality shields are what I might look for in cables but you won't often see that mentioned because the cable guys prefer to tell you about the "telephonetic micro-particles" they have discovered. I seriously believe in cables and in finding selections which suit your system and your tastes so this is not meant to diss the entire cable industry, just that portion of it that turns out BS rebranded generic products you could buy for far less or which are actually IMO destructive to the overall sound quality. Cables should be thought of as another component in your system, a component which can make a more significant improvement in your system than can many other purchases. If you've put together your system based on what was available at the time for "X" amount of money, then maybe cables won't have the same importance to you. However, good systems deserve good cables and that can only be accomplished through an informed buyer. Unfortunately, there is a lot of mumbo jumbo, competing claims of superiority and shouts of snake oil in the cable wars. I do think it is worth the time, however, for a consumer to do a little research and discard about 90% of the hyperbole surrounding cables - which comes from both sides. There really shouldn't be 500 different ways to make a decent cable and the rules shouldn't change every new selling season. Worse yet, most of the DIY-er's have no real idea what they are doing when they put together a cable. They solder something together and remarkably think it is the best cable ever for many times their cost. It seldom is. Wade through with very high boots is about the only really good advice I can give on cables. End of rant. Try looking at both Kimber Cables and Blue Jeans Cables. They are fairly no-nonsense lines. But, bottom line, what you linked to will make sound in your system. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2606 Registered: Oct-07 | Blue Jeans 2x. They seem to get the fundamentals right. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16897 Registered: May-04 | . "They seem to get the fundamentals right. " OK, but what about the harmonics? . |
|
New member Username: AarrdPost Number: 4 Registered: Oct-11 | ??? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16898 Registered: May-04 | . Each main division of the string represents the "fundamental" frequency of the note being played. Between each "node" (main division) of the string's length there will occur subsequent divisions which sound as the upper harmonics being produced by the string. Each subsequent division will be further divided and then divided again and again out into infinity. This is the same rule I assume most people are taught in high school level physics classes which states the principle of never being able to not divide a string in half. For each division you make, mathematically it is possible to make yet another division until you reach an infinite number of cuts, which could still - in theory - be divided yet again. Combine the guitar strings's harmonics - bronze sounding different than steel which sounds unlike nylon - with the harmonics of the instrument's materials which are also set into resonant motion - cedar being not the same as spruce or maple - and you have the "sonic signature" of each instrument. The more familair you become with the "sound" of each instrument, the more critical it becomes that the audio system accurately reproduce those small differences in the "inflection" of each instrument being used by each player. It is, in its nature, very much the same as being able to identify a person's voice over the (very low tech, frequency challenged) telephone without them stating their name. This perceived "transparency" to the source is at the heart of all high quality sound reproduction. It is one quality which separates low, mid and high quality audio components. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16899 Registered: May-04 | . Also check "Timbre" in the glossary I provided above. |
|
New member Username: AarrdPost Number: 5 Registered: Oct-11 | Thanks once again Jan, for your in depth answers Really appreciate the amount of time you spent on my question. In the end I went for the above cables and the system sounds like the best I've ever had, so I can't complain: NAD C320 Cambridge Audio 540p Gemini XL-600 Rio Volt Denon DRW-760 iPod classic Wharfedale SW-150 Sub JR 149 Looking to buy the Yamaha CDS 300 as a CD player solution cause I need the DAC iPod setup. I know it's not high end but it works for me. My thanks also to Leo. JR 149's: http://www.mcmullon.com/icollect/hi_fi/jim_rodgers/jr_review.htm |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16912 Registered: May-04 | . Yes, I noticed the vintage JR's. Are the foam screens still in good shape? I've used the original LS3/5a for years and only recently have put them in the closet as I've been exploring amps with lower wattage output. My 1976 Rogers' version of the 3/5a is of the original 15 Ohm type which makes further demands on the amplifier's ability to produce sufficient voltage output. At the frequency extremes the KEF drivers used in the 3/5a's and the JR's are a little ragged by today's standards but the midrange of the speaker is still a high water mark few available systems can even approach. If you ever seriously consider the advice to base your priorities around getting the midrange right above all else (very excellent advice IMO), the JR's are the reference you should try to meet. . |
|
New member Username: AarrdPost Number: 6 Registered: Oct-11 | Hi Jan, I'm afraid the foam was lost a long time ago. If you haven't seen this already here's an original review of the 149's in Gramophone from Sept 76 link to section 10: http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/September%201976/144/735341/#header-logo |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16914 Registered: May-04 | . I'm familiar with the 149's and with Grammophone. I used to be a regular reader when it was still a decent magazine. Maybe it's just me but recently too many audio/music magazines have just stopped being informative. |