As a general rule, I would have run the system the same way that you currently have it i.e. solid on top and stranded on bottom. Going to heavy gauge solid wires on the bottom in a low capacitance design ( twisted pair, star quad, etc ) would offer the extension and output that the stranded is currently supplying while adding the "control", "snap" and "definition" that the smaller gauge solids were previously providing.
As to the Goertz cables, they offer a lot of surface area ( gauge ) for low resistance and high current capacity. At the same time, they are ALL "skin" due to their thin & flat design. This miminizes smearing of the signal as you have one low resistance heavy conductor passing the signal throughout the entire frequency range. There is no "jumping from strand to strand" or "skin effect" or "multiple paths" for the signal to take. That is one of the reasons that they present the very unified i.e. "seamless" and "coherent" presentation that they do.
The fact that the nominal impedance of their flat cables is also very low allows the amp to more efficiently couple to the speaker. All of the Goertz are between 2 - 8 ohms nominally whereas most other speaker cables are well above 20 ohms nominally. While there are some exceptions to this rule ( Dunlavy & some of the heavier gauge Kimbers that i'm aware of ), both Nordost and standard 12 gauge Monster type cable clock in somewhere around 100 ohms or so. There are cables that come in even higher than that, but most are somewhere in the 40 - 120 ohm range.
Since the amp sees EVERYTHING that is connected behind it as part of the load, why would you want to introduce a higher nominal impedance into what is basically a low impedance circuit ? Obviously, the higher impedance can act somewhat as a "buffer" if you have a highly reactive yet low impedance load that the amp is having a hard time dealing with. While this can effect the sonics, it would be up to the end user and personal preferences as to whether the results were good or bad. That is why cables are both system and user dependent.
As to the question about the mains / sub, get the mains dialed in to where they sound good on their own. If you can't do this, you'll simply be adding another variable ( the sub ) to what is already a mess. The sub can then be dialed in simply to augment and extend what is already there. Too many people try to use a SUB-woofer as their main low frequency driver i.e. "woofer" and the results are never as good as they could be. The only advantage to doing something like that would be if you have a speaker that really isn't full range and the designer was trying to extend what little bass output it had beyond a reasonable amount. Taking the load off of such a design can benefit the upper bass / midrange clarity and slightly improve dynamics and spl capability. That is strictly a "band-aid" approach unless the system was designed to work that way as a whole though. Sean
>
As to the Goertz cables, they offer a lot of surface area ( gauge ) for low resistance and high current capacity. At the same time, they are ALL "skin" due to their thin & flat design. This miminizes smearing of the signal as you have one low resistance heavy conductor passing the signal throughout the entire frequency range. There is no "jumping from strand to strand" or "skin effect" or "multiple paths" for the signal to take. That is one of the reasons that they present the very unified i.e. "seamless" and "coherent" presentation that they do.
The fact that the nominal impedance of their flat cables is also very low allows the amp to more efficiently couple to the speaker. All of the Goertz are between 2 - 8 ohms nominally whereas most other speaker cables are well above 20 ohms nominally. While there are some exceptions to this rule ( Dunlavy & some of the heavier gauge Kimbers that i'm aware of ), both Nordost and standard 12 gauge Monster type cable clock in somewhere around 100 ohms or so. There are cables that come in even higher than that, but most are somewhere in the 40 - 120 ohm range.
Since the amp sees EVERYTHING that is connected behind it as part of the load, why would you want to introduce a higher nominal impedance into what is basically a low impedance circuit ? Obviously, the higher impedance can act somewhat as a "buffer" if you have a highly reactive yet low impedance load that the amp is having a hard time dealing with. While this can effect the sonics, it would be up to the end user and personal preferences as to whether the results were good or bad. That is why cables are both system and user dependent.
As to the question about the mains / sub, get the mains dialed in to where they sound good on their own. If you can't do this, you'll simply be adding another variable ( the sub ) to what is already a mess. The sub can then be dialed in simply to augment and extend what is already there. Too many people try to use a SUB-woofer as their main low frequency driver i.e. "woofer" and the results are never as good as they could be. The only advantage to doing something like that would be if you have a speaker that really isn't full range and the designer was trying to extend what little bass output it had beyond a reasonable amount. Taking the load off of such a design can benefit the upper bass / midrange clarity and slightly improve dynamics and spl capability. That is strictly a "band-aid" approach unless the system was designed to work that way as a whole though. Sean
>