CONGRATS ON YOUR NEW UPGRADE!

Assuming you are setting up a strictly 2 channel system, I would recommend the following:

Make sure your speaker cables or wire-runs to each speaker are of equal length(s), even if one doesn't need to be as long as the other. Make that length(s) as short as necessary. Although I think you'd be fine with 14 gauge for the 35' run(s) you are contemplating, I think you'd get a little more oomph with a higher gauge, like that 12 gauge someone suggested. I prefer soldered high-quality spades on both ends. I've used bananas and non-soldered connectors in the past. As far as I'm concerned, good quality soldered connections are the way to go. IMO, they are worth the miniscule and negligible extra effort. Thirty or thirty five foot high quality, even reasonably priced, speaker cables are going to cost a lot of dough! However, if you want to spring for stuff like that, check out what your local audio shops might be able to offer or any of the fine, reputable on-line sellers (e.g. Audio Advisor; Music Direct; etc.). Monoprice is fine wire/cable. If you haven't already seen the eternal back & forth debates about speaker cables, interconnects, etc. on audio forums before, you should be aware that the quickest way to start a fight in an empty bar is to start a forum or debate about cables, wire and interconnects.

Here's just one of many, many charts to give you a basic idea about wire gauge:

4 Ohm Speaker - 8 Ohm Speaker
18 AWG 15 feet (max) 30 feet (max)
16 AWG 25 feet (max) 50 feet (max)
14 AWG 40 feet (max) 75 feet (max)
12 AWG 60 feet (max) 120 feet (max)

If you can swing it, go for the Focal Aria 936. You won't regret it! I've spent serious seat-time with a MAC MA5200 and a pair of those and that is a marriage made in heaven... depending, of course, on your sound room dimensions, acoustics, etc. The 926 are certainly fine speakers but I found the Revel Performa3 F206 to be a serious notch above those with a MAC MA5200, for around the same money.

ENJOY!

In my opinion the direction of the cable is actually more important than the gauge of the wire.

My apologies for not being clear. “Directionality” what we call the phenomenon that is observed when there is change in sound if cable is connected one way in the system vs the other, reversed direction. I’m not referring to the direction of the shield if there is one, which is often direction dependent, being connected at only one end of the cable. I’m referring to the physical and electrical asymmetry inherent in all wire that occurs during manufacture. Thus speaker cables, interconnects, digital cables, HDMI cables, all internal wire, etc. are “directional.” So simply reversing cables or fuses should result in a change in the sound. The “correct direction” should sound clearer, more focused, more natural.

manunkind wrote:

Thank you... I never considered that. I guess if I take both wires from the same spool, at least I can guarantee that I can run both of them in the same direction... Do you think if I measure the resistance of the wire in both directions, I'll be able to tell if the current travels differently in one way than another? And how would I go about installing it- from the lower resistance at the amplifier to the higher at the speaker end, or the other way around? I doubt that the difference in sound will be immediately obvious, not to my ears- but I wouldn't want it to happened over time, when my wires are hidden away behind the drywall.

That way lies madness.

Actually you don’t need to worry about resistance or current. You only need to ensure the two cables or wires are in the same direction coming off the spool. Then listen to the cables both in one one direction, then the other. Decide which direction sounds best. It’s not rocket science. Ditto with fuses.

They are not really metal ions, they’re not homogeneous due to the way wire is made but I’m not trying to belittle you. Never mind, it’s ok. Best sometimes not to argue about audio stuff. Lol

Manukind, considering the project you have before you, save yourself some time & trouble if you want to empirically test this wacky theory. For example, before you go about routing two 35' runs of speaker wire or cable, just do as geofkait is suggesting. If you find that electrons travelling at, virtually, the speed of light actually do prefer one direction over another while dancing along the lengths of quality copper wire, please let us know. I think NASA might be interested, as well.

Electrons don’t travel at the speed of light in conductors. For one thing only photons travel at speed of light. For another thing free electron net velocity in metal conducts is around zero, in one direction the “drift velocity” is only a meter per hour but you know with AC and everything the net velocity is zero. No offense to you or any of your teachers.

A photon checked into a hotel. The baggage clerk walked up to him and asked him if he could help carry his luggage to his room. The photon replied, no, I don’t have any luggage. I’m traveling light.

You might be surprised to know that current is defined as charge per unit time. Charge is carried by free electrons which, as I pointed out earlier, move very slowly, one meter per hour. For AC the electrons change direction according to the frequency of the instantaneous alternation of current. Thus, by inspection Current has no velocity. Current doesn’t travel. Current has no direction, it’s a scalar quantity. Only the charge carriers, the free electrons, have velocity. If any questions raise hands.

Einstein and a young lass were smoking in bed when she blurted out, gee, that didn’t take long. Einstein paused for a moment then replied, that’s funny, it took a long time for me.

Heisenberg was speeding on the highway when he was pulled over by a cop. The cop asked Heisenberg, do you know how fast you were going? Heisenberg replied, no, but I know exactly where I am.

Everything is topsy turvy. Many folks believe current travels through conductors. People often believe the signal is an electromagnetic wave. But as we know electromagnetic waves travel at speed of light. The reason for that is electromagnetic waves are comprised of photons, which makes sense since photons are the only thing that can travel at lightspeed. In fact they MUST travel at lightspeed. In a metal conductor that speed is less than lightspeed in a vacuum.so, what’s your pleasure? Speakers are driven by electrons? By current? By voltage? By photons?

The dude from Silversmith cables employs the electromagnetic wave theory. Here is what he says

From somewhere in cyberspace,

“One of the first things that stand out in conversation with Jeff about his cables is that he eschews the standard inductance/capacitance/resistance/impedance dance and talks about wave propagation; his designs are based solely upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of electron flow.

While Jeff modestly suggests that he is one of only "a few" cable designers to base his designs upon the physics model of electricity as electromagnetic wave energy instead of the movement, or "flow," of electrons, I can tell you that he is the only one I’ve spoken with in my over four decades exploring audio cables and their design to even mention, let alone champion, this philosophy.”

[Editorial note: he’s actually not the only one to talk about electromagnetic wave theory of audio cables. Electromagnetic wave theory in cables is well documented and has been discussed by your humble scribe on many occasion on audio forums for quite some time.

One sticky problem with the electromagnetic wave theory for audio cables, by the way, is that the energy is not (rpt not) found in the metal conductor but in Poynting vectors that lie outside the metal conductor. Which opens a whole new can of worms. Eeewww!]

I’m confident Roger Russell’s paper is filled to the brim with the same anti audiophile diatribes that pseudo scientists are masters of. I have found amplifier designers in particular to be about two paradigm shifts behind audiophiles in terms of what is reality when it comes to wires, cables, fuses, directionality, cryogenics, you name. People believe what they want to believe. Not to belittle you or Roger Russell, whoever he is. These guys are just one step removed from The Amazing Randi if you want my opinion. No offense to you personally.

Oh, please. He just calls himself an engineer. He’s not a for real engineer, you know with a degree.
If he has a degree he hides it very well. He does know how to appeal to the average dude, I’ll grant him that.
From what I read. Which actually wasn’t that much as I gave up on page two.

Anyone who uses zip cord at a show, I mean, come on! Get a clue!

His paper sounds so much like “real engineering, the kind of pablum that appeals to non engineer types, they lap that stuff up, oh, boy! No offense to you personally.

At graduation ceremonies the Dean of the audio engineering school addressed the graduating class: “Some of you will go on to bigger and better things, the rest of you will become audio engineers.”

I am from the future. I only come back here for the jokes.

For the record, I indicated "electrons", as in plural, and, "at, virtually, the speed of light"; not THE speed of light. I'm no scientist or engineer. However, what little I remember from high school science classes is that copper wire, like the kind we are babbling about here, has mass, and mass is composed of atoms and their little buddies, protons, neutrons and electrons. Lots of 'em! If I have that anywhere near right, I assume when an electrical charge is introduced into that wire, those little electrons get very excited and start moving around. They may not move very fast, individually, but the commotion and stampede caused makes for some pretty impressive speed, sum total... no? Not the speed of light fast but pretty darn close... no? Close enough so that when you flick on a light switch, for all practical intents & purposes, the light comes on instantly. So, electricity is pretty close to the speed of light... no? Is that kind of the way it works, Professor Geoffkait? I'm really not trying to be sarcastic, here. Just wondering how close I am to understanding this on the atomic level and how much high school science I remember.

BTW: I very much enjoyed the jokes! Reminded me of what the great Muhammad Ali once said about how fast he was. He said something to the effect that he was so fast that when he went to bed at night he could turn off the lights and be in bed before the room got dark.

Old Audiophile wrote,

“Just wondering how close I am to understanding this on the atomic level and how much high school science I remember.”

For the record, you’re not close. I’ve already explained why you’re wrong, I won’t bore everyone by repeating myself.

Knowledge can be defined as what’s left after you subtract out what you forgot from school.

I’m from the future, I only come back here for the jokes.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too Chicken to Change

Manunkind wrote,

“No only that, they only move in one direction. As a result, each time you'll try to play The Beatles, you'll only hear People's Temple Choir. Or so the Audioquest salesman says.”

Now that you mention it AudioQuest not only subscribes to wire directionality they also subscribe to highly polished surfaces for wire.. If anyone can tell me why highly polished surfaces of wire is a good idea raise your hand. Reasonably good jokes will be accepted as partial credit in lieu of you know, knowledge.

For more credit can anyone explain why wire is directional in AC circuits? Manunkind, you’re up.

Thank you for prompting me to learn just a little more about electricity and wire, in spite of the churlishness. Seems common sense may be the least common of the senses.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/19/what-is-the-speed-of-electricity/

Let’s take a simplified example, speaker diaphragms move because of the interaction between the “magnetic signal” in the speaker cable and the magnet part of the speaker. It’s the “magnetic field” part of the “electromagnetic wave” that travels along the conductor. The Poynting vectors are (1) the electric field and (2) the magnetic field that are induced by the “moving charges” - free electrons. The Poynting vectors change direction along with the moving charges (free electrons), the electric field and magnetic field are vectors unlike current. Poynting vectors are actually located outside the copper conductor between the copper conductor and the dielectric material and determined by the electromagnetic wave. So the conductor is still important, it’s metal, purity, etc. Thus, it’s the “induced magnetic field” part of the “electric signal” that produces the sound we hear from speakers.

What have we learned, a quick recap.

Electrons carry the charge in audio cables and wires.

Audio circuits are almost all alternating current AC.

Current is a measure of number of electrons that pass a point on the conductor per unit time.

Electrons change direction of movement as the audio frequencies dictate. So electrons change direction as often as 20,000 times a second or more often.

(Free) Electron drift velocity is about 1 meter per hour in a copper conductor. This is 1/100 inch per second.

Electrons move in the opposite direction on one cable from their direction on the other cable, then reverse direction according to audio frequencies.

This means that for audio frequency of 5,000 Hz cycles per second, electrons move only 1/100 in/sec divided by 2500 (times that electrons reverse direction) 1/250000 inch = 1/4 of a millionth of an inch. For higher frequencies they would obviously move even less.

Since electrons move back and forth on each + and - wire or cable, their net velocity over time is approximately zero.

So, with that in mind, can we agree that for all practical purposes electrons don’t move in an audio cable?

Below is the model for a copper crystal lattice. Would someone please point out the correct orientation for best sound reproduction? ;)

That’s not what the crystal lattice looks like in a wire. You know, after it’s been deformed when drawn through a series of dies. Capish?

Sorry Charlie, I have been dealing with metal structures for more than 50 years. The metal crystal structures of metal are deformed, squeezed, scrapped in one direction, or bent by hammering, bending, drawing through a die. And the natural arrangement of the atoms in the metal are “discombobulated” by the same physical actions during manufacture. That’s why cryogenic treatment improves the physical and electrical properties of metals, including audio cable conductors. Have you ever noticed HOW MANY audio manufacturers employ cryo treatment? I have.

The drawing of copper through a die deforms the crystals so they tend to “point” in one direction - the opposite direction of the wire going through the die. Gosh! This deformation of the crystals also is why many cable manufactures cryo their cables, to make the metal crystals and atoms more homogeneous, for better performance, it’s also why race car engine parts are often cryo’d, better performance, e.g., stronger, harder, less brittle. It also is why one manufacturer, maybe others, highly polishes the surfaces of the wire, to eliminate irregularities in the surface crystal structures due to manufacture.

Furthermore, if careful measurements are taken, the electrical resistance in wire, any wire, is slightly different depending on direction of measurement. The lower measured resistance is ALWAYS measured in the direction of best sound, I.e., toward the speakers. This difference in resistance demonstrates there MUST be physical and electrical asymmetry in wire. Why so much resistance to change? Lol

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too chicken to change

geoffkait wrote:

That’s not what the crystal lattice looks like in a wire. You know, after it’s been deformed when drawn through a series of dies. Capish?

The lattice occurs at the atomic level. I don't believe it is altered by drawing the copper into wire strands.

From copper.org: "Solid copper can be described as the arrangement of copper atoms in a face-centered-cubic (fcc) configuration. A copper atom is found at each corner and in the center of each face of a cube as depicted in Figure 1. This is the unit cell which is repeated in three dimensional space to make up the crystal structure of the metal. A copper atom is found at each corner and in the center of each face of a cube as depicted in Figure 1. This is the unit cell which is repeated in three dimensional space to make up the crystal structure of the metal.

"The atoms are held in place in the structure by the energy of the atomic attractions between them. It is this particular face-centered cubic arrangement of the atoms that gives copper its high ductility and toughness. All metals deform by means of a mechanism called slip. When slip occurs, a force on the metal causes the atoms to slide past one another in groups. In the copper fcc structure this movement occurs preferentially in any or all of three directions along a specific geometric plane of atoms within the lattice, as shown in Figure 2.

"The copper cell has four such planes. If movement can occur in three directions on all four planes, there are twelve possibilities for the occurrence of slip. It turns out that this is the maximum number of possibilities for slip found in any metal structure. The more likely it is that a metal can experience substantial slip, the more likely it is to deform rather than fracture and fail. Hence, copper has excellent ductility and toughness and is resistant to fatigue and creep. An added benefit is that copper, since it is a face-centered structure, does not suffer from embrittlement at low (sub-zero) temperatures; a phenomenon common to other crystal structures."

Your evidence doesn’t prove anything regarding deformation of the lattice due to the manufacturing process. It’s just like saying the sky is blue. We call those kinds of statements truisms. The difference in copper atomic structure/arrangement resulting from cryogenic treatment can be seen with a scanning electron microscope. The electronic forces holding copper atoms together to form their characteristic lattice structure is not indestructible. The forces of hammering, bending, cutting and drawing are more powerful.

It’s not like cryogenics and wire directionality are anything new to audio, they’ve both been around for a very long time. You might not like it or you might disagree with. A lot of skeptics get heartburn over these subjects, who knows why? If you were a real skeptic you would roll up your sleeves and start investigating these claims. The fact fuses are always directional should be a clue for you all since fuses are otherwise symmetrical save for the fuse wire. It’s not rocket science.

geoffkait wrote:

Your evidence doesn’t prove anything regarding deformation of the lattice due to the manufacturing process. It’s just like saying the sky is blue. We call those kinds of statements truisms. The difference in copper atomic structure/arrangement resulting from cryogenic treatment can be seen with a scanning electron microscope. The electronic forces holding copper atoms together to form their characteristic lattice structure is not indestructible. The forces of hammering, bending, cutting and drawing are more powerful.

It’s not like cryogenics and wire directionality are anything new to audio, they’ve both been around for a very long time. You might not like it or you might disagree with. A lot of skeptics get heartburn over these subjects, who knows why? If you were a real skeptic you would roll up your sleeves and start investigating these claims. The fact fuses are always directional should be a clue for you all since fuses are otherwise symmetrical save for the fuse wire. It’s not rocket science.

OMG! You really are the Stereophile equivalent of white noise! :) :) :)

No wonder you were banned from Audiogon. You are the poster child for everything that's wrong with social media. Your nonsensical and DISRESPECTFUL ravings are NOT HELPFUL!!! I expect better from anyone who has lived to the ripe old age of 78.

No one EVER scores a point with you, because you're constantly throwing out red herrings, moving the goalposts, and shifting the topic. I'm putting your ass on ignore.

What a potty mouth, didn’t your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? Typical pseudo scientist - won’t argue the issue and always (rpt always) resorts to personal attacks. Guess you ran out of ammo, dude. Better luck next time. Nikola Tesla. Give me a break! Lol you don’t even know how AC works. That’s right, run away, run, run, run! Lol

geoffkait wrote:

What a potty mouth, didn’t your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? Typical pseudo scientist - won’t argue the issue and always (rpt always) resorts to personal attacks. Guess you ran out of ammo, dude. Better luck next time. Nikola Tesla. Give me a break! Lol you don’t even know how AC works. That’s right, run away, run, run, run! Lol

Cool your jets there, Geoffrey. Trust me, you don't want me knocking on the door to your brickface condo in Falls Church or ringing you in the middle of the night at 703-560-3018.

Dr. Mr. Tesla, like most info you posted on this thread my personal info you posted is hopelessly out of date. Good luck in your quest to be someone of importance. This conversation can serve no purpose any more. Is it safe to assume from your threat you’re mildly retarded?

manunkind wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

The difference in copper atomic structure/arrangement resulting from cryogenic treatment can be seen with a scanning electron microscope.

I'm sorry, but this is utter lunacy. Puts everything else you have to say in the proper light. Atomic structure can be seen in a microscope! You should begin your discussions with this statement, so people don't waste any more time listening to tin hat arguments. Enough is enough.

Relax, take a sedative. I just finished writing yesterday you can see the change in atomic lattice structure using a scanning electron microscope. You know, so how the metal’s crystal lattice structure is affected by cryogenic treatment and also by the manufacture of wire - e.g., when drawing wire through a die will be apparent. Please try to keep up with the conversation.

geoffkait wrote:

... Is it safe to assume from your threat you’re mildly retarded?

Incorrect, Geoffrey. As usual. As with your previous lunatic ravings, nonsensical proclamations, and irrational presumptions, you have demonstrated yourself to be dead wrong again.

Consider what I said a public service announcement, not a threat. Never presume the veil of anonymity provided to disturbed individuals like you by the Internet to be impenetrable.

BTW, where is your cognitive bona fides? Oh that’s right; all you have is your day pass from the local funny farm.

I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you dedicate less time to spewing verbal excrement on forums and spend it more constructively by fixing that miserable website of yours? It’s full of dead links and is insecure.

Oh, never mind. It’s an accurate reflection of its owner exactly as it is.

I hereby appoint you Chief Bloviator. They never found a cure for Mensa, did they?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too Chicken to Change

geoffkait wrote:

I hereby appoint you Chief Bloviator. They never found a cure for Mensa, did they?

As if you were in a position to appoint anyone as anything. Ha!

And, yes, there is a cure for intelligence. It's a mix of equal measures of what we call "stinkin' thinkin'" and pomposity. You have obviously taken way too much of that cure.

I expected a better comeback. Win some, lose some. Good luck trying to free yourself from your reality tunnel. Have you tried a blow torch or high explosives?

geoffkait wrote:

I expected a better comeback. Win some, lose some. Good luck trying to free yourself from your reality tunnel. Have you tried a blow torch or high explosives?

How about providing a demonstration on yourself?

Ouch, that one really hurt. Score one for the Tunnel Boy.

Observation: it appears Kal Rubinson was correct with respect to trying to have a discussion of wire directionality when he opined, “That way lies madness.”

Kal Rubinson wrote:

manunkind wrote:

Thank you... I never considered that. I guess if I take both wires from the same spool, at least I can guarantee that I can run both of them in the same direction... Do you think if I measure the resistance of the wire in both directions, I'll be able to tell if the current travels differently in one way than another? And how would I go about installing it- from the lower resistance at the amplifier to the higher at the speaker end, or the other way around? I doubt that the difference in sound will be immediately obvious, not to my ears- but I wouldn't want it to happened over time, when my wires are hidden away behind the drywall.

That way lies madness.