Something doesn't seem right about this...

All, as always you are correct - it was for 2.5 meters - my mistake

I did look a couple of times, because I thought it was high, but missed the cable length

Thanks for spotting that.

Williwonka ... I have no idea if this is good, bad or neutral, but here's the specs on my Kimber cables:

DUT: 8PR 2.5m bare wire ends.

(Cp) parallel capacitance: 742.0 pF @ 20 kHz
(Ls) series inductance: 0.459 µH @ 20 kHz
(Rdc) dc loop resistance: 0.021 Ω
(Xt) total reactance: 0.057 Ω @ 20 kHz
Frequency response ± 0.5 dB: dc - 50 kHz

***************

I picked these cables up quite a few ago from a dealer. Is 742 pF @20kHz a lot, a little or just right? My amp is an ARC Ref 150 tube job that uses output trannies. I would appreciate your thoughts. For some reason, I think that capacitive loads are hard to drive, requiring current. I wonder how my rig would sound with different speaker cables??

Thanks

Bruce

Al and Williwonka, I mentioned here (to be posted) and/or elsewhere that I own the Kimber 8PR speaker cables. I checked the Kimber web site for the specs. Frankly ... I feel like I just had a Space Balls or Ben Hur "deja vu" experience. [Remember the Space Balls scene where Dark Helmet and crew were on the starship and increased speed to light speed, hyper speed and then they went plaid. Or Ben Hur, the boat started out at cruising speed, then increased to battle speed, and then ramming speed.]

Ok, here's my take-a-way from the Kimber site. First we start out with the cheapy "pure copper" version -- PR; then we move up to the line to the "ultra pure copper" version -- VR; then finally we go plaid, the "hyper pure copper" version -- TC. Now ... the capacitance and total reactance specs for each version (2.5 meters) are as follows: (PR) -- 742 pF/.057 ohms; (VS) -- 744 pF/.047 ohms; and TC -- 821 pF/.044 ohms.

Please help me here gents. The minute differences in these specs are about as meaningful to me as pondering how many angels can sit on a pinhead.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Those are all reasonable numbers, and unlikely to account for any sonic differences that may exist among those cables, or between any of them and the majority of other cables.

The most notable spec difference between the three cables is their rated bandwidth, those numbers being 50, 150, and 300 kHz respectively (for response within +/- 0.5 db). Whether each of those numbers would result in sonics that are better, worse, or the same as the others is a function of many system dependent variables, and conceivably also on the RFI environment, meaning that the answer is unpredictable IMO.

Best,
-- Al

Thanks Al. In a somewhat difference context, your comment about the possible impact of speaker cables on RFI reminds me about our earlier posts that we traded about the Spatial Computers Velocity Bridge (VB1). As it turns out, it was an extremely expensive RC circuit.

For reasons still unknown to me, inserting the VB1 in the amp/speaker circuit in parallel resulted in an unpleasant brightening of the acoustic presentation, almost to the point of being grainy and fatiguing. The VB1 was supposed to filter out ultra-high frequency RFI and thereby improve the sound, ... which as just stated, at least to my sorry-old ears, it did not.

Back to the cables. I surmise that as one climbs up the Kimber ladder, with the PR grade (made of copper) being the lowest rung and the TC grade (made of hyper, super-duper, ultra pure copper) being the highest rung, the price would correlatively increase. I haven't gone down "cable lane" yet, and have no present intention of doing so. That said, if I spent a heck of a lot more for speaker cables touted as being made of hyper, ultra, super duper pure copper that resulted in no cognizable improvement in sound, I could easily see myself going "plaid" ala Space Balls.

Thanks for the reality check.

Bruce