Hi Nonoise,
First, the Dakiom device is not changing the amount of negative feedback. It can't do that because it is not within the amplifier's feedback loop. (Although it would be within the feedback loop if the amp were one of a very small handful of designs which I believe exist that use "remote sensing" to include the speaker cables in the loop. Those designs would have "remote sense" terminals that are connected to the speakers in addition to the main speaker output terminals).
Second, I note the following warning at the Dakiom site:
Third, there are two ways I can envision this device making a difference, when used with an amplifier that has a feedback loop. The first of those reasons is, I would expect, likely to be the more significant one in most cases. But I would expect the difference it would result in to be highly system dependent, and to have little predictability with respect to whether it would subjectively be for the better or for the worse in any given system.
1)Depending on amplifier bandwidth, the amount of feedback it uses, and other variables, placing a large capacitance at the output can result at high frequencies in effects that include frequency response peaking, phase shifts, and overshoot and ringing in response to high speed transients. I'm not sure whether for typical amplifier parameters those effects would occur primarily in the upper treble range or the ultrasonic range or the RF range. But it is conceivable that there would be consequences at audible frequencies in any of those cases.
2)The device could act as a filter that would minimize the degree to which RFI or other spurious high frequency energy that may be picked up in the speaker cables might enter the feedback loop of the amplifier, that pickup conceivably having perceptible although unpredictable sonic consequences.
If you already haven't, btw, I would suggest going back and forth several times between having the Dakiom device in place and not having it in place, using the new cabling. Not only to make sure that the Dakiom and not the cabling is responsible for the difference, but to rule out the possibility that differences in contact integrity or other variables might have been factors as well.
Best regards,
-- Al
First, the Dakiom device is not changing the amount of negative feedback. It can't do that because it is not within the amplifier's feedback loop. (Although it would be within the feedback loop if the amp were one of a very small handful of designs which I believe exist that use "remote sensing" to include the speaker cables in the loop. Those designs would have "remote sense" terminals that are connected to the speakers in addition to the main speaker output terminals).
Second, I note the following warning at the Dakiom site:
WARNING: THE AMPLIFIER OUTPUT MUST BE ABLE TO HANDLE A CAPACITIVE LOAD OF UP TO 0.08uF. (Best results are obtained with amplifiers that can handle a capacitive load of up to 0.33uF.) THIS IS TRUE FOR MOST CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL AMPLIFIERS. WHEN IN DOUBT (SUCH AS VACUUM TUBE, OR UNCONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY), CONSULT THE MANUFACTURER.0.08 uf is 80,000 pf. That is a MUCH greater amount of capacitance than the capacitance of a typical length of ultra-high capacitance speaker cable such as Goertz, which have been known to cause some amplifiers to oscillate and self-destruct when used without a Zobel network. Personally, I would not let such a device get anywhere near my amplifier.
Third, there are two ways I can envision this device making a difference, when used with an amplifier that has a feedback loop. The first of those reasons is, I would expect, likely to be the more significant one in most cases. But I would expect the difference it would result in to be highly system dependent, and to have little predictability with respect to whether it would subjectively be for the better or for the worse in any given system.
1)Depending on amplifier bandwidth, the amount of feedback it uses, and other variables, placing a large capacitance at the output can result at high frequencies in effects that include frequency response peaking, phase shifts, and overshoot and ringing in response to high speed transients. I'm not sure whether for typical amplifier parameters those effects would occur primarily in the upper treble range or the ultrasonic range or the RF range. But it is conceivable that there would be consequences at audible frequencies in any of those cases.
2)The device could act as a filter that would minimize the degree to which RFI or other spurious high frequency energy that may be picked up in the speaker cables might enter the feedback loop of the amplifier, that pickup conceivably having perceptible although unpredictable sonic consequences.
If you already haven't, btw, I would suggest going back and forth several times between having the Dakiom device in place and not having it in place, using the new cabling. Not only to make sure that the Dakiom and not the cabling is responsible for the difference, but to rule out the possibility that differences in contact integrity or other variables might have been factors as well.
Best regards,
-- Al