Length of Loudspeaker Cables

[fraserhadden]

I have decided, pending new speakers, to rearrange the layout of my system, placing my equipment rack between the loudspeakers. This allows shorter - and thus, for a given price, better - cables of 1.5m a side, or thereabouts.
 
I have done a site search, but cannot establish whether there is, as with Naim, a minimum length of loudspeaker cable that my D400 - D440 to be - requires to avoid destabilising its output stages.
 
Any ideas?
 
Fraser

[Jean-Marie]

There is no minimum. The ideal would be no cable at all like in the phantom.

[Hifi_swlon]

I think the official Devialet policy changed from 'the best cable is no cable' to 'the best cable is a cable'. Since AIR beta 3, it may well have reverted back to 'the best cable is no cable', or at least 'the best cable is no cable unless you're doing a review or public demo in which case the best cable is a cable'.

Hope that helps clear thing up

[Soniclife]

I have done a site search, but cannot establish whether there is, as with Naim, a minimum length of loudspeaker cable that my D400 - D440 to be - requires to avoid destabilising its output stages.
 
Any ideas?
 
Fraser

Naim are odd with this, but Devialet will cope with anything. My guess is their recommendation if they made one would be short runs of fat cable.

[Jean-Marie]

What I meant by no cable like in the phantom is that each speaker is directly connected to its own amp via an as short as possible PCB track.

So yes I meant was the shortest and fatest run of cable would be the better.

[Hifi_swlon]

What I meant by no cable like in the phantom is that each speaker is directly connected to its own amp via an as short as possible PCB track.

So yes I meant was the shortest and fatest run of cable would be the better.

(Yes sorry I was only joking I couldn't resist it. . Personally I don't worry too much about speaker cable length/specs having blind tested a load, but that's just me).

[Jean-Marie]

What I meant by no cable like in the phantom is that each speaker is directly connected to its own amp via an as short as possible PCB track.

So yes I meant was the shortest and fatest run of cable would be the better.

(Yes sorry I was only joking I couldn't resist it. . Personally I don't worry too much about speaker cable length/specs having blind tested a load, but that's just me).

I don't either.... provided they have a sufficient section is all what matters to me, but I don't want to start a storm on cables....

[fraserhadden]

Thanks all. I shall go for the shortest cables my layout allows.

Fraser

[Pim]

This is an interesting experiment you're doing that I haven't been able to due to a space issue:

Jim Smith in his 'Get Better Sound' book says you should avoid putting your equipment rack in between the speakers if you can. He even states that putting the equipment somewhere on a side wall will increase the sound quality by such a degree that using lamp cord for speaker cable and the equipment on the side wall sounds better than having the rack in between the speakers and using high end speaker cable.

I have implemented a number of Jim's tips and they all increased the sound quality of my system. This one though I haven't so it will be interesting to read about your findings.

One thing that's never been clear to me is whether this idea comes from the speakers needing that space in between for acoustic reasons or whether it is because the vibration of the music has a bad impact on the electronics.

Looking forward to your findings.

Cheers,

Pim

[GuillaumeB]

This is an interesting experiment you're doing that I haven't been able to due to a space issue:

Jim Smith in his 'Get Better Sound' book says you should avoid putting your equipment rack in between the speakers if you can. He even states that putting the equipment somewhere on a side wall will increase the sound quality by such a degree that using lamp cord for speaker cable and the equipment on the side wall sounds better than having the rack in between the speakers and using high end speaker cable.

I have implemented a number of Jim's tips and they all increased the sound quality of my system. This one though I haven't so it will be interesting to read about your findings.

One thing that's never been clear to me is whether this idea comes from the speakers needing that space in between for acoustic reasons or whether it is because the vibration of the music has a bad impact on the electronics.

Looking forward to your findings.

Cheers,

Pim

My guess is that having a rack in between the speakers will degrade the imaging. Possibly having your equipment closer to the ground on a stand/shelf negates this though.

I don't have much choice in my setup since there is a large cinema screen and centre speaker between my speakers. Perhaps it would sound better if I removed the centre speaker and stand? I might give this a try.

Having said that I have heard many a fine system with equipment set up between the speakers. 

I guess the results one gets are multi-factorial and dependent on a whole host of factors (hence Jim Smith's book, otherwise it would be a pamphlet and free on the internet  )

Guillaume