Electrostatic speaker cables...


I just read SoundLabs white paper on electrostatic speaker cables. It recommends low inductance AND low capacitance for a speaker cable, along with a medium impedence.

I own a pair of Martin Logan Aerius i, and am looking for upgrade suggestions: I'm powering them with a VTL IT 85, and right now, am using MIT Terminator4 cables. I would like to find a cable that fits the above suggestions that is also biwired.

Any recommendations? Obviously, SoundLab's own cables would be one idea, but I wouldn't be able to audition them. I'm planning on loaning a bunch of cables from fatwyre.com...

Thanks..
128x128dennis_the_menace
Hi Dennis,

Ran into this topic of yours just now.

Guess life has taken you other directions in the mean time, but for what it's worth:
MIT is your best choice for Electrostats as far as I have found or heard from anyone

I have traded my Logans for Cello Grand Masters (!) last year (impressive picture of my living room if you're interested) and have thereby (had to) change the cables to static XLO's, because I need double tri-wire per side now. (this is positively unaffordable with MIT)

I guess you know about MIT 4 bi-wired cables and have probably solved your problem over the past 2 or 3 years.
I have a pair of MIT Terminator 4 bi-wires laying around and waiting for a destination if you'd be interested.

Please let me know if I can bright up your day with either a nice picture or a set of MIT4 biwires

Robert
hey Robert.. I had and was happy with Bearlab cables for about 1.5 years, and upgraded to some Purist Audio Venustas (both IC and speaker), definitely was a worthwhile improvement. Since getting teh Purist cables, I haven't thought about cables at all.. definitely very happy with the impact they've made on my system.

btw, would love to see pics of your system. How are the cellos?
Audioengr: ""Propagation speed????? You must be joking. This is not a common-clock digital system. This is analog audio for kripes sake! Series inductance is the most important parameter, followed by capacitance and dielectric absorption.""

Yes..prop speed is important, but, not the entity itself..I explain:

Prop speed, V = 1/ sqr(LC), and also:

V = (lightspeed) / sqr(mu * epsilon)

And: L * C = 1034 * effective DC...l in nH, C in pf.

Measure L and C...you did, at 33 nH and 118 pf...your effective DC is (33*118)/1034...or, 3.76.

The prop speed is proportional to 1/sqr(effective DC).

So, the prop speed is definitely related to L: L being related to mu, wire diameter, and wire geometry....and C: C being related to epsilon, spacing, geometry.

I do agree that the term "prop speed" is rather confusing, as most seem to think it means that the transit time from the amp to the load is of any consideration...it isnt. But, the term prop speed is directly related to the DC, L, and C.

Audioengr:""If you need a low-inductance, low capacitance cable, Which you do, this is a hard combo to come by.""

Actually, it isn't hard. But, physics sets limits. I can easily make a cable which has .033 uH per foot, and about 35 pf per foot while keeping guage to about #12, but I'd prefer to keep the impedance at 8 ohms. That would be L of about .008 uH/ft..C of 135 pf/ft, diameter of about .4 inch with insulation 20 mils....or .6 inch dia with 40 mil insulation. It depends on your flashover rating requirement.

Cheers, John
Jneutron: What do you do about skin effect, conductor shape, EM field ( and therefore the impedance ) consistencies at various power levels, etc ??? I'd like to see what your "simple math" approach to cable design comes up with when all of the factors are taken into consideration. It is good to see that you recognize power transfer characteristics as being "important" though : ) Sean
>