![]() |
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Audioholics' analysis of 89259 design? posted by vrgard on April 28, 2003 at 22:27:47:
I have replied to the article, and to the posts:http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3eaeb4286019ffff;act=ST;f=4;t=493
is the reply to the article, and:http://www.audioholics.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3eade041429effff;act=ST;f=4;t=483;st=15
is on the second page of posts re the subject. You can back-track to the first page using the links at the top and bottom left hand side.
Note that the article was generated in response to someone posting a link to my DIY cable info, and Gene's subsequent comment in the posts section, and my taking him to task over his comments.
The fact remains, that even using ONLY LCR metrics, the CC89259 is a superior cable, and if one factors in the things that AH did not address, such as the dielectrics for the two cables, and so on, the it will become apparent that the CC89259 has a lot going for it.
Note that use of 8213 as a single coax speaker cable has a lot going for it, and it is also superior to zip cords. However, it will have a higher level of skin effect related problems than the CC89259, and is not electrically symmetrical as the CC89259 is.
Listening tests between CC89259, 8213, and typical 12 ga. zip are pretty conclusive, with the CC89259 showing greater clarity and image depth and width, as well as an apparently quieter background for the music to emerge. Highs are crisp and clean.
The 8213 is close, with the biggest difference in the imaging (not as deep or wide), and a slight lack of precise HF focus.
The zip cord, well, it sounds like zip cord does: harsh, blurred, wooly in the bass, with virtualy no image depth or width, the sound is glued to the speakers, ending up dead and lifeless.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Audioholics' analysis of 89259 design? - Jon Risch 10:38:29 04/29/03 (3)
- Re: Audioholics' analysis of 89259 design? - CONfused 07:40:51 05/03/03 (1)
- Re: Audioholics' analysis of 89259 design? - Jon Risch 16:04:29 05/03/03 (0)
- Thanks, Jon! - vrgard 13:28:57 04/29/03 (0)