Improved SDA Interconnect Cables

13

Comments

  • avguytxavguytx Posts: 1,623
    edited January 2008
    When I rebuilt the crossovers on my buddies SDA 2.3's, I just added a single banana binding post above the pin/blade connection and he uses a single 12ga speaker wire from one to the other. On the inside, the blue wire is connected to the single binding post and the white wire is still connected just like it was. Everything works fine.

    The pin/blade is the easy one...it's the blade/blade that seems to be a biotch. DarqueKnight, do you have any wiring documentation of what you did the XLR replacement? My male/female connectors and wire will be here in a few days and I'm going to finally get them done on the SRS II's.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,040
    edited January 2008
    nspindel wrote: »
    I'm still a bit confused about the whole 1 or 2 conductor question on the pin-blade interconnects. There's definitely two wires connected to the pin-blade post. One is obviously carrying the dimensional signal, the other is shorted to the ground terminal of the main speaker posts.

    The blade socket in pin blade cables is only used for testing diagnostic purposes. It is wired to the negative speaker terminals for this reason. It has no function in normal SDA operation.
    nspindel wrote: »
    So wouldn't there need to be a second conductor in the sda interconnect which connects the two grounds together, thus creating the common ground of the speakers?
    nspindel wrote: »
    A single conductor cable would carry the dimensional signal, but where does the common ground get connected?

    This is done through the common ground connection of the amplifier.
    nspindel wrote: »
    I suppose you could always save yourself the cost of a binding post and just run speaker wire between the grounds of the main speaker posts, but the single-conductor description of the stock pin-blade sda interconnect is not making sense to me given what I see inside the cabinet.

    As with most things electronic, a visual inspection does not tell the whole story. The crossover schematics and Matthew Polk's paper on SDA fundamentals from the June 1984 issue of Audio magazine would provide more insight. The Paper is titled "Polk's SDA Speakers, Designed-In Stereo" and is available free of charge from Polk Audio's customer service department. The crossover schematics are posted on the forum.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,040
    edited January 2008
    avguytx wrote: »
    DarqueKnight, do you have any wiring documentation of what you did the XLR replacement?

    The only thing I used was the crossover schematic.
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    DarqueNight, I won't bother quoting your reply, suffice it to say.... understood. Thanks for the answers.

    By the way, I was checking out your setup(s) in the system showcase area. I am not worthy.... Extremely impressive. Besides the audio gear, your home is exquisite. Well done!
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    nspindel, just a suggestion. You might want to do one tweak at a time as it will give you a better idea of what changed what and if there is something you don't like, you'll have a pretty good idea of what it is.
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    Excellent point. My only concern is that I'll have to do all the burn in's are in series rather than in parallel. That's a lotta juice, but I suppose I probably won't do a dedicated burn in on the sda interconnect, I'll just be doing it as I listen.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    What I was suggesting is that you do the basic TL upgrade, caps and resistors first. Later, do the inductors, if so inclined. I wasn't. Then, do the cable, if so inclined, I wasn't, but I have to use the AI-1.
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    Although you're definitely right with your advice, and if someone were to ask me I'd tell them to do exactly what you're telling me, I think I'm probably going to do the whole thing at once. The TL upgrade/198 tweeter is the obvious first step (especially since I've already pulled apart one of the XO's). The interconnect upgrade is almost a no-brainer, I can't really see how improving the SDA interconnect over the stock wire can hurt things. The only other issue, then, is the inductor. The thing about the inductor is that it's reversed extremely easily. I'm not getting rid of the old inductor, that's what the XO board is mounted on, and that's how the whole assembly attaches to the cabinet. I'll just be adding the new inductor into the cabinet somewhere. Worst case, if I'm not happy with the overall sound, I'll just go in and reconnect the old inductor. I'm going to attach disconnects to the new inductor, so if I need/want to reverse it, the hardest part will be taking off the PR (and kissing $60 goodbye...)

    All things said, the interconnect is easily reversed as well, it's just one wire that would need to be de/re-soldered....
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    50 feet of the Monster Z2 from Accessories4Less just arrived. I'll say, there might be better cable out there, no doubt. But for the money, this has to be the best bang for the buck. At $1.29/ft, this is some beautiful stuff....
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    Just an observation......why do people price cables per foot? I mean, do we price amps per pound or square inches? Of course not, it's silly as is the price per foot.
  • dbnhdbnh Posts: 194
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Just an observation......why do people price cables per foot? I mean, do we price amps per pound or square inches? Of course not, it's silly as is the price per foot.
    I know what you mean, it's like pricing carpet by the square yard...:rolleyes:
  • Marty913Marty913 Posts: 760
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Just an observation......why do people price cables per foot? I mean, do we price amps per pound or square inches? Of course not, it's silly as is the price per foot.

    I kind of like cable priced by the foot. I frequented a number of Audio stores back in the 70's & 80's that used to carry one brand only (Esoteric for example) in 500-1000 ft. spools of 3 different gauges. All priced by the foot. How much do you need and which gauge - very easy. Beats crummy pre-packaged 25, 50, and 100 foot rolls.

    The ones I can't stand are the ones you can't find the gauge on (Monster?). Four or five grades of wire in 3 different sizes and not a gauge in sight. My two cents.
  • RuSsMaNRuSsMaN Posts: 17,995
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Just an observation......why do people price cables per foot? I mean, do we price amps per pound or square inches? Of course not, it's silly as is the price per foot.

    Been hittin' the sassafras a little hard today?
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Just an observation......why do people price cables per foot? I mean, do we price amps per pound or square inches? Of course not, it's silly as is the price per foot.

    At $12.90 for a 10-foot speaker cable of this quality, they can come up with that figure however they want!!!
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    Ya'll don't get it. WTF does it matter how much a foot it costs? I've never bought cables priced by the foot. I buy cables priced at the total amount. Like this, "So, those one meter IC's are $1200.00? Great, I'll take them."

    Now, you want to price them per foot.....let's see, that comes to $181.81 per foot. So what, it's still $1200.00.
  • dbnhdbnh Posts: 194
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Ya'll don't get it. WTF does it matter how much a foot it costs? I've never bought cables priced by the foot. I buy cables priced at the total amount. Like this, "So, those one meter IC's are $1200.00? Great, I'll take them."

    Now, you want to price them per foot.....let's see, that comes to $181.81 per foot. So what, it's still $1200.00.
    Uhh, ok, let's sell eggs by the kilo or pound, then mark the cartons accordingly.

    You say potato, I say meter or foot.
  • nmsnms Posts: 694
    edited January 2008
    F1, some people buy cables off of spools. Pricing by foot is the only way to go there.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    I guess I've not made myself clear enough. One should not shop for cable based on price by the foot, one should shop for cable based on how it sounds. The final cost is just that and the need to break it down by the foot is as ridiculous as dbnh's comments.
  • dbnhdbnh Posts: 194
    edited January 2008
    Uhh, ok re:
    F1nut wrote:
    I guess I've not made myself clear enough.
    .

    Re:
    F1nut wrote:
    the need to break it down by the foot is as ridiculous as dbnh's comments.
    I think the comments are pretty funny. FYI - aspirin or a sense of humor does wonders in this world. Sorry, 'jess bein' 'diculous agin. :D :D :D
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2008
    Don't quit your day job.
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    nspindel, just a suggestion. You might want to do one tweak at a time as it will give you a better idea of what changed what and if there is something you don't like, you'll have a pretty good idea of what it is.


    Ummmmm...... Sorry....... I'm all done...... and...... THIS ROCKS!!!!!! Oh my god, I can't believe how good my freaking speakers sound. No regrets on doing it all at once. No, I can't tell what improved what. Maybe I could have saved a whole lot of money and just changed the inductors. Or maybe the inductors and the custom interconnect are worthless, and maybe this is all because of the Sonicaps. Or maybe I could have just stuck another cap on the original board, added the 198's and I would have been done. All I know is, MY SPEAKERS SOUND AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I'm going to put up another thread with pictures - I'll post here again with the link when the thread started.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 14,993
    edited January 2008
    F1nut wrote: »
    Ya'll don't get it. WTF does it matter how much a foot it costs? I've never bought cables priced by the foot. I buy cables priced at the total amount. Like this, "So, those one meter IC's are $1200.00? Great, I'll take them."

    Now, you want to price them per foot.....let's see, that comes to $181.81 per foot. So what, it's still $1200.00.

    Hey, Don't get so angry, You're giving us F1's a bad name!
  • dbnhdbnh Posts: 194
    edited January 2008
    It's good to be m...e...l...l...o...w...
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited January 2008
    If you haven't seen my new thread:

    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62106
  • nspindelnspindel Posts: 5,151
    edited March 2008
    Here's a question - I don't have a lot of confidence in that monster pin crimped connection. When I twist the two strands of Z2 together, I find that it's still too thick for the base connector, so the wire bunches up at the bottom of it a bit. It still works, but I've had to re-do it a few times because the crimp came loose.

    So I'm thinking of going at it a different way - I've got the "normal" monster terminators for my Z2 speaker cables, and those work great. The connection is tight as hell on those. And they're crimpless - they screw down onto the cable. So why twist off the two strands just to use one terminator? Can I not finish one wire in a monster banana terminator, the other wire in a monster spade terminator, and connect both wires to the cardas post? It'd then be little more than a funky speaker cable with a banana and a spade on each end.

    Seems far more stable of a connection, and a bit neater of cable, no?
  • PolkMaster1PolkMaster1 Posts: 847
    edited January 2010
    DarqeKnight -
    I am thinking of doing the same thing to my 1.2TLs. I am thinking of going with a binding post connection instead of an XLR Connection.

    First: I am thinking of placing the Binding Post on each speaker as close to the edge of one another which would mean drilling into the cabinet to make the hole. Should it be placed in the binding post cup area instead or should the binding post be as close to the binding post cup as possible?

    Second: Should I drill two holes (one for Positive, one for Negative) or would one binding post do?

    Third: Was there a reason for going with an XLR Connection over a Binding Post Connection or was this a matter of personal preference?

    Thanks much!
  • hearingimparedhearingimpared Banned Posts: 21,473
    edited January 2010
    I was going to do this mod to my 1.2TLs. I didn't because I wasn't sure if down the line I would ever be using non-common ground amps that the grounds couldn't be strapped. Lo and behold not long after that decision I ended up purchasing a TriVista 300 hybrid integrated which used a single chasis mono block design that couldn't be strapped. So I'm glad Jesse had to forsight to suggest that I don't do the mod.

    Just to give you something to think about.

    Edit: just to clarify if you do this mod, you will not be able to use an AI-1 cable or Dreadknot if need arises to use one with an unstrapable amplifier non-common ground amp.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,040
    edited January 2010
    DarqeKnight -
    I am thinking of doing the same thing to my 1.2TLs. I am thinking of going with a binding post connection instead of an XLR Connection.

    First: I am thinking of placing the Binding Post on each speaker as close to the edge of one another which would mean drilling into the cabinet to make the hole. Should it be placed in the binding post cup area instead or should the binding post be as close to the binding post cup as possible?

    Second: Should I drill two holes (one for Positive, one for Negative) or would one binding post do?

    Third: Was there a reason for going with an XLR Connection over a Binding Post Connection or was this a matter of personal preference?

    One binding post is sufficient for the 1.2TL. The 1.2TL uses a pin/blade cable which has two wires, but both are connected to the pin (the blade is just there for additional mechanical support). For my 1.2TL's, I used a single binding post which was added to the binding post plate (see figure 1 above). I still left the pin/blade socket in place and electrically connected in case I needed to run some diagnostic tests or use the AI-1 non common ground interface.

    The SRS uses a blade/blade cable which has two wires, one connected to the blade and the other connected to the pin. I used an XLR connector in that case (see figure 11 above) because I could connect two wires to it and it and offered a very secure (locking) connection. An RCA jack would have also worked, but if I ever wanted to disconnect and reconnect the cable while the speakers were playing, I ran the risk of touching the cable's pin to the jack's opposite polarity housing.
  • PolkMaster1PolkMaster1 Posts: 847
    edited January 2010
    Hearing Impared and DarqueKnight -

    Thanks much for your thoughts.
    Quesiton for you both - I believe my 1.2TLs have the older tweeter, I think its R0194 (havnt opened up the tweeters to verify), but do you think that upgrading to the R0198 would be worthwhile? As you know, the cost to upgrade will be roughly $500. Do you think its worth it?

    For Hearing - have you thought about performing the interconnect upgrade and just leave the current wiring in place so that you could use an AI-1 connector for non-common-ground amps?

    Also for you both -
    What is a "non-common-ground" amp, and why would a manufacturer create such an amp? What benefits does a non-common-ground amp offer? Would it be lower ohm ratings?

    As an off-topic, but still on topic for "speaker mods", after reading DarqueKnights post about Mortite, I just picked some up at Home Depot today. Now you know what I will be working on this weekend. Hearing - I will be going on line to purchase some Dynamat dampners and some spikes for the 1.2TLs as you suggested. I have a hardwood floor and I am using flat feet. Not sure what benefits I will get from the spikes vs. flats or why that would matter, but some say its worth it.

    Do you guys ever have guests come over and they are just astonished when they see your speakers? My co-workers were impressed!!! I call them "the coffin" speakers. ;-)
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 37,344
    edited January 2010
    I believe my 1.2TLs have the older tweeter, I think its R0194 (havnt opened up the tweeters to verify), but do you think that upgrading to the R0198 would be worthwhile? As you know, the cost to upgrade will be roughly $500. Do you think its worth it?

    Your speakers will have SL3000's, if they are original. The proper replacement tweeters are the RD0198-1's.

    It's well worth the money to upgrade.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!