"Interestingly the greatest improvement was with the smaller less expensive amp and to the smaller less expensive speakers."
Gear that is less robust will always respond better to improved signal transfer characteristics. "Sturdier" gear has more muscle and can more overcome / deal with some of the more common problems that we run into. As such, i'm not surprised that less expensive gear "woke up" in more noticeable fashion.
"I miss having them here already."
That's easy to fix : )
"Wouldn't the use of the Zoebles compensate for the greater potential for reflected EMF in the MI3's?"
Zobel's have nothing to do with signals within the audible passband. In effect, they are kind of like a "high pass crossover" at ultrasonic frequencies. That is, the value of the capacitor selects what frequencies are allowed to enter into the resistor to complete that portion of the circuit. Since the frequencies that are affected are well beyond audibility, the power transfer characteristics within the audible passband aren't hampered or affected. The only thing that the Zobel does ( in this case ) is to present the amplifier with a suitable load at VERY high frequencies, which is what helps to keep the amp stable and negate the potential for oscillation. As such, the reactance / reflected EMF from the speaker remains the same regardless of whether or not you have a Zobel hooked up.
"Am I correct in assuming that you don't believe the Threshold S/500 II qualifies as a "VERY sturdy amp"?"
I do think that this is a sturdy amp, but i also believe that there are amps out there that are "sturdier". Like anything else, there are most certainly ways to improve upon most any product known to man. Some of this will boil down to empirical fact, some of it to personal preference / voicing of the equipment.
"The idea of using integral spades has some appeal. Obviously the MI 3 lends itself to this application better than the MI 2. In the past you have recommended the use of Alpha-core silver spades, any thoughts on using the Alpha-cores "au-natural"? If so, what would you suggest vis-a-vis the MI 2 vs. the MI3?"
The fewer the connections in a signal path, the better off you are. Having said that, my concerns about reliability and potential damage are what prompt me to recommend the silver spades over a bare connection. This becomes more of a potential for problems as one does more maintenance / removal & reconnection of the cables at the points of termination. Believe me, i have seen some EXTREMELY mangled Goertz cabling in attempts to do exactly what you ask about doing.
As a side note, the bare Copper will tend to corrode in a negative manner whereas the oxidized Silver still remains HIGHLY conductive. In fact, Silver Oxide ( that nasty black crust ) is more conductive than Copper is at its' best. As such, you will have to perform more maintenance on bare Copper connections than you would with the Silver spades.
"You mention that the "Goertz flat speaker cables require minimal break-in as compared to the mass majority of speaker cables. This is due to both their geometry and materials used." You have also endorsed the use of a cable cooker in past posts. Are you suggesting that these cables may be exempt from the advantages of using a cooker?"
"Cable cooking" has more to do with skin effect and conditioning of the dielectric than anything else. Due to the fact that the Goertz design is ALL "skin" and uses minimal dielectric, the benefits of using some type of "burner" are largely negated. On top of that, the lower impedance design encourages greater power transfer, so the amp will "load up" into the cabling and speakers better. This increased level of output helps to condition the cabling in rapid fashion.
"BTW, Alpha-core seems to be shying away from making claims about the use of teflon in their latest MI 2 & 3 offerings."
They still produce their older version along with offering the newer Teflon insulated version as far as i know. Given that the Copper conductors already have a very thin layer of dielectric applied directly to them, the difference between the "old school" Goertz insulation and the newer Teflon models may not be as great of a difference as one might expect. I haven't any personal experience with the newer Teflon models, so i can't say. The one time that i would highly recommend the Teflon models over older models is if one lives in an extremely humid environment. The older dielectric used is more sensitive to moisture whereas the Teflon isn't.
Any thoughts on the Alpha-core pricing structure? Seems a bit strange to me. Out side vendors seem to be able to provide more competitive pricing than buying direct as well.
Price structure on most products is based upon manufacturing and distribution costs. Just because something uses 2x, 4x, 8x, etc... the amount of materials to produce, doesn't mean that the price to actually manufacture that product is 2x, 4x, 8x, etc... that of the original. This has to do more with increased complexity of handling( more material may require more labour as it is harder to work with ), increased cost of packaging, shipping costs, etc...
On top of that, "charging what the market will bear" also enters into the equation. As we all know, many "high enders" don't think that they are getting something special unless it costs more. Since Goertz is "reasonably priced" compared to many other brands, they probably jacked up their top of the line cable a bit in order to offer the higher level of prestige that price brings with it. As previously mentioned though, there are times where a "top of the line" cable may not be best for a given installation, so "more is better" doesn't always apply.
As to retailers offering a better deal on the cable vs buying direct, Goetz is simply charging list price for their cables. This protects their dealers, which can offer as big or little of a discount as they see fit. Whether or not a dealer will offer the same type of trial period may be a bit of a factor in the price differences that could exist in such a situation.
"FWIW, I did manage to snap off the leads of one of the supplied Zoebels when tightening down on the speaker's binding posts. In the past you have suggested that one could improve upon the supplied design. How would I go about determining how to produce these for my application?"
Simply purchase the proper parts in the corresponding values, attach their legs together in some form of permanent fashion and attach them to the speaker terminals. I use MUCH heavier and higher grade parts than what is needed, but then again, i tend to go overkill on most things. I also covered the parts in shrink wrap so as to avoid the potential for broken connections and / or shorting out at the binding posts.
One could actually attach some form of spades to the legs of the Zobel so as to avoid crimping or cutting off the leg at the point of connection. I used banana plugs on mine, which allows me to tighten down the posts on the spades and then attach the Zobel's by inserting them into the holes in the binding posts. No interference between the speaker cable / binding post connection and the Zobel can still do the job it is supposed to.
Hope this helps. Glad that you found the Pass designed products / Goertz combo to be as synergistic as i have.
Clio09: The Python's have WAY more dielectric and are therefore a lower grade cable. There are also quite a few electrical ( impedance, velocity of propogation, etc ) variables involved with the Python's, depending on how they are terminated / geometrically configured. More conductors also means more connections with increased potential for differences in signals. I'm not surprised that you picked what you did as the Python type of design came about more from trying to market a more conventional looking cable than an actual product improvement design innovation. Sean
>
