Cable Talk 3

[Effem]

I don't often get curious about new cables that appear on the market unless the price is so low that having a play with them is about as expensive as a trip to the cinema with some popcorn thrown in, so it's more like entertainment than a risky punt on a new component which may or may not pan out. Enter Talk Cable 3 speaker cable at just under £4 a metre unterminated which falls neatly into the inexpensive curiosity arena.

I am to believe that What Hifi have lavished high praise upon this cable for it's sonic qualities and pricing, but it was Jerry's comments about this same cable ousting a pair of Acoustic Zen Satori cables from his own system that actually piqued my interest.

First job to do when they arrived is to trim them up ready for connection. By gum they are made from some tough plastic and the outer sheath needed a VERY sharp knife to crack them open. The conductor covering is tougher still and it was a case of scribing round the the conductors with a sharp knife then effectively breaking the cut off by bending back and forth, then whittling off the plastic in strips rather than hauling it off the copper strands in one piece like most cables. Talking of the copper strands, they have a bright intensity and finish that is stunning and rather unexpected.

My initial perception of the sound was a bright forward presentation with a disjointed indistinct low bass in the background, out of balance with the rest of the music. Treble was verging on having a stinging quality with sibilance clearly evident on some recordings and bad recordings sounded really bad, while good recordings just didn't quite cut the mustard with me. CD after CD of all genres continued with that theme, so perhaps a burn in period was called for and some was duly applied for around 10 hours or so. After that period, the bass had firmed up a tad and treble wasn't quite as fierce in my system, although the midband had acquired some warmth which was initially lacking which made the sound somewhat sterile. I cannot say with any certainty that they might change for the better with some additional hours on them, but I treasure my listening time greatly at the moment to persist with any burn in period, but I may at some time give them another crack of the whip and see what transpires.

To put these cables into context then, I would imagine they would fare much better in a system that needed some pep and verve rather than one which has already no difficulty with resolving fine detail like mine is. Bearing in mind their low price too, they represent very good value considering they can embarass others costing much more - considerably more in fact. Are they "giant killers" I hear you ask? Nope, not in my opinion, I suspect the old hype machine and my lack of trust in WHF's judgement is probably at play here because a cable like the Belkin do a far better job in the sound stakes and they are not that much more in money terms. Will I follow Jerry's lead by turfing out my resident Tellurium Blacks? Absolutely not.

[Macca]

I have 2x3 metre bi wire runs of Cable Talk 3 that I bought second-hand about 10 years ago. This is not the same cable then, despite the name?

[Effem]

I have 2x3 metre bi wire runs of Cable Talk 3 that I bought second-hand about 10 years ago. This is not the same cable then, despite the name?

No Martin, this is a newly launched product I believe

http://decoaudio.com/wpimages/wp33c0a6a9_05.jpg

http://decoaudio.com/wpimages/wp295578a3_05.jpg

[bogle111]

I have 2x3 metre bi wire runs of Cable Talk 3 that I bought second-hand about 10 years ago. This is not the same cable then, despite the name?

I have some of that old stuff too. Overly bright with a dull ploddy bass. Maybe has just reached Cornwall Effem, if they are using the same carrier as our suppliers. Maybe that the outer cable has gone hard with age. CT3 was going back in '96 I seem to recall.

Regs
Pete
(Jesting & hating all things HiFi after having paid for two new matching tweeters - the price? Don't ask, otherwise that is another new outfit for you know who)

[Effem]

Methinks I have made a slight error.

The cable jacket says "Talk Cable 3" not Cable Talk 3, apparently made by Talk Electronics. Might not be the same cable in that instance :scratch:

[bogle111]

Methinks I have made a slight error.

The cable jacket says "Talk Cable 3" not Cable Talk 3, apparently made by Talk Electronics. Might not be the same cable in that instance :scratch:

We get poorly translated stuff here in Wales too.

[realysm42]

What's the yellow bit in the middle about?

[Reid Malenfant]

What's the yellow bit in the middle about?
I thought it was a filler until I looked closely at the section of the cable end :scratch:

It actually looks like there is some stranded copper wire in there, very odd...


Could be used as an earth I suppose, hopefully Frank will enlighten us :D

[DSJR]

Cable Talk no longer exists, but Talk Electronics does, and it seems the new talk 3 speaker cable is an update on the old Theatre 2 speaker cable CT used to do.

It would seem that a huge number of these wires are made by BICC and, if you order enough Km at a time, can be made the way you want. The copper was always of the highest quality and in the case of this new wire, the centre core (not used?) gives precise spacing of the conductors and adds a touch of inductance, according to the blurb - I'm sure the Theatre 2 was similar, but it's a very long time since I sold the stuff.

£4 per metre isn't a silly price these days and dealers need to make some good profit on it or it wouldn't sell these days sadly. For a fairly sensibly priced speaker cable, I'm sure it's as good as anything else with similar stranded cross-section and may even be better for all I know :)

P.S. Amazing how the old CT 3.1 and 4.1 could sound slightly different, yet the copper was the same and only the insulation was different...

[NRG]

What's the yellow bit in the middle about?

Its like a multicore black jacket T&E with some nice printing :scratch:

[Reid Malenfant]

<snip> the centre core (not used?) gives precise spacing of the conductors and adds a touch of inductance, according to the blurb - I'm sure the Theatre 2 was similar, but it's a very long time since I sold the stuff.
I'd suggest it reduces the cable capacitance, which is kind of similar in a round about way :eyebrows:

[DSJR]

Have a look at the Deco Audio site and possibly the talk Electronics one, as the construction is discussed on at least one of these :)

[Reid Malenfant]

Cheers Dave, as helpful as ever I see :)

[Reffc]

I thought it was a filler until I looked closely at the section of the cable end :scratch:

It actually looks like there is some stranded copper wire in there, very odd...


Could be used as an earth I suppose, hopefully Frank will enlighten us :D

Actually, it is a filler and there's no copper in it. It's filled with lots of small polyester strands.

I've discussed the design of Talk3 at length with Kevin from Talk Electronics, and its one of the most refreshing and sensible designs to come out in ages.

The idea behind the filler is two-fold:

1) it is there to provide some mechanical damping and;
2) it is there to provide a designed space between the conductors.

This allows for a small amount of controlled inductance which is mean to help with rejection of some interference but more importantly it lowers capacitance to a knat's whisker. This is important as it is capacitance that is unwanted in most speaker cable applications.

Remember that the cable is just PART of a circuit made up by the amplifier's output stage, the loudspeaker crossovers and voice coils and finally the cable that connects them.

If that circuit has too much capacitance introduced into the circuit it can cause output stages of amps to oscillate and become unstable resulting in a harshness, sometimes referred to as "ringing" in the output stage. It also rolls off higher frequencies when capacitative reactance adds to circuit impedance.

Talk3 cable is also very low impedance due to the CSA of the conductors.

There is nothing about the design that in scientific terms can cause any brightness or separation of frequencies. If that is happening it is likely that the problem lies elsewhere and that other more reactive cables are just masking that detail.

I have been that impressed with the cable design and its performance that it is the ONLY speaker cable I now stock for the RFC website.

It was me who introduced it to Jerry and I was there when we compared it to Jerry's ultra expensive cable. In his set up, it comprehensively wiped the floor with the Acoustic Zen cable. Much better overall balance, better bass and better detail.

Many speaker cables are made (deliberately?) with some very odd electrical properties, the worst culprit of all being the highly capacitative cable designs. Avoid those. Whilst the makers may claim all sorts of things for them, there should be no place in a speaker cable design for high capacitance. Some of these cables, you could argue, are deliberately designed to "tune" the sound and they do this by INCREASING signal distortion which is hardly the aim.

Two things matter most in speaker cable design: Low capacitance and low impedance. There are some fairly exotic cables around that measure as well as the Talk3 and perhaps benefit in geometry from ultra low phase shift and perhaps give a teeny weeny bit more accurate and refined sound, but Talk3 is really IMHO as good as most systems really need.

I have now had feedback from over 50 customers and all without exception have been utterly delighted with its performance, myself included (it has replaced the Chord Odyssey I was using...it's way better!).

Hopefully that sheds a bit of light on the design and characteristics of this cable.

[synsei]

I used to run Cable Talk 3.1 (?) in my system, the bi-wire version. Anyway, though it would seem that it is a different cable to Frank's his description of its sonic signature coincides with that of Cable Talk 3.1, so it would seem the similarity isn't just in the name. The Belkin cable completely trounces CT 3.1 incidentally ;)

[Reid Malenfant]

Hopefully that sheds a bit of light on the design and characteristics of this cable.
Indeed & it all makes perfect sense, cheers Paul :) As I suspected it was to reduce capacitance...

[DSJR]

CT 3.1 and 4.1 were a classic 42 strand wire in the dumbell form. THe "point 1" era cables had one conductor reversed in manufacture to take direction into account. The insulation, worked out by Kevin, in the 4.1 and upwards was formulated to have no long term chemical influence on the copper while maintaining some flexibility. There WAS a sonic difference, no matter what AVI's Ashley James and his disciples say (and they say a lot, claiming "science" as their proof:))

[Reffc]

CT 3.1 and 4.1 were a classic 42 strand wire in the dumbell form. THe "point 1" era cables had one conductor reversed in manufacture to take direction into account. The insulation, worked out by Kevin, in the 4.1 and upwards was formulated to have no long term chemical influence on the copper while maintaining some flexibility. There WAS a sonic difference, no matter what AVI's Ashley James and his disciples say (and they say a lot, claiming "science" as their proof:))

Indeed, although audio signals are AC and therefore not directional, and its rather debatable, certainly from an audio engineer's perspective whether reversing a conductor makes any difference except to the marketing departments:mental:

Ashley's not a bad guy you know. I remember him from years back (he lived close by and had one of the largest collections of valves stored in his attic you're ever likely to see!).

[DSJR]

I've known him well for twenty or more years since I bought some ATC's and AVI stuff from him and in fairness, his online persona and rapid typing stance is identical to his face to face one, unlike some people perhaps :lol: You get what you see in the flesh. I'm not as placid as I used to be and intensely dislike being shouted down on things I've found repeatedly in my experience :) There's a very fine line where provable fact leaves off and product-promotional-spin takes over, but I've been warned not to push it on that score "over there" ;)

[MCRU]

but Talk3 is really IMHO as good as most systems really need.

Really? :)

[Reffc]

I did add the "IMHO" ;)

As I added (so we can get the context right), there are many cables that provide lower distortion (and lower impedance) but essentially, the LCR characteristics of Talk3 are very good indeed.

Sure, there are plenty of more expensive and more refined cables, but many are very expensive, and it could be argued that when you reach a certain price-point, money would perhaps be wiser directed at the kit, as a change of TT cartridge for example often yields FAR greater sound improvements than swapping out a very good cable for an excellent cable....IMHO ;)

[jandl100]

.... but it was Jerry's comments about this same cable ousting a pair of Acoustic Zen Satori cables from his own system that actually piqued my interest.

.... My initial perception of the sound was a bright forward presentation with a disjointed indistinct low bass in the background, out of balance with the rest of the music. Treble was verging on having a stinging quality with sibilance clearly evident on some recordings and bad recordings sounded really bad, while good recordings just didn't quite cut the mustard with me. .....

....Will I follow Jerry's lead by turfing out my resident Tellurium Blacks? Absolutely not.

Bloody hell, Frank! :eek: A real demolition job! :lol:

These Talk 3 cables sound absolutely fabulous in my humble system. :) Easily the best I have heard, although I've not heard the Tellurium Black -- yet!

I can't even begin to get me head around the differences in our perceptions!

[Effem]

It is strange indeed Jerry because we are not usually that far apart in our sonic perceptions :scratch: Maybe your set had some running hours on them?

As for a "demolition job" old fruit, I had written that they have improved over time and when time permits I may run them some more, the same as my TQ Blacks didn't exactly float my boat straight out of the packet :)

I would have made my feelings very plain if I didn't like them at all :ner:

[jandl100]

I would have made my feelings very plain if I didn't like them at all :ner:

I'm not sure you can get more plain than what you posted, Frank! :doh::lol:

I don't know if the demo pair of Talk3 that Paul brought round had any hours on them. But the pair I subsequently bought were defo straight off the reel, I think, and I wasn't in any way disappointed with them when I plumbed 'em in.

Must admit I am tempted to invest in a pair of Tellurium Blacks - the ebay seller at the lowest price is offering full money back.

Maybe it's just that the Tellurium Black is superb at £280 and the Talk3 is superb at £65 - priced at 3m pairs. :)
.... but my £700 rrp Acoustic Zen Satori cables were punted into the weeds in no uncertain terms by the Talk3. Very strange. :scratch:

[DSJR]

I wonder what magical substance is in these tellurium wires to make them so much "better?"

[jandl100]

B*ggered if I know.

What made me perceive that the Talk3 was so much better than my old Acoustic Zen cables? - it certainly wasn't expectation bias, as I was convinced the Talk3 wouldn't be as good. Maybe it was my wallet that convinced me! :eyebrows:

[DSJR]

Ten years ago, would you have bought the identical stuff (with grey/cream outer jacket) when it was Theatre 2.1 at £1-50 a metre? Bloody Sevenoaks were selling QED Micro by the van-load back then because it was small because that's what the laydeez liked and any proper speaker wire was too thick :(

[Reffc]

There was zero running hours on the Talk3 when I brought them to Jerrys. Being an engineer, I hold the view that cables don't burn in, our ears and brain do as they get accustomed to subtle changes in sound.

There is no magic fairy dust that makes any speaker cable sound good. Its very very simple. The lower the distortion and impedance, the more integrity the signal will retain and in theory the better the sound. "Better" is a very very subjective term. people with bright systems might prefer a cable with loads of capacitance that rolls off the top end, it will sound "better" to them, yet it is inferior in that it won't preserve the signal as well.

Speaker cables are definitely system dependant, more specifically amp and speaker dependant, and as I've already indicated, all they are are part of a circuit. Change the value of the capacitors in a circuit, or circuit impedance and you'll change the sound. Some amps need high inductance (NVA and Naim spring to mind) whilst others most definitely suffer if capacitance is added to the output stage.

Cost is no indication of how a cable will sound. It may be an indication of R&D and clever (expensive) geometries which may or may not extract more detail, but many speaker designers (notably Alan Shaw of Harbeth) will tell you that low impedance and low capacitance are all that matters. I'm a little more open minded as what sounds right to one person in their own system is not necessarily what measures well, its far more subjective and a matter of personal taste. If we're after fidelity though, what measures well has to be important.

[Spectral Morn]

Acoustic Zen cables in my experience are very system dependant, working well in some, sounding very average in others and in some sounding terrible.

[Effem]

Maybe it's just that the Tellurium Black is superb at £280 and the Talk3 is superb at £65

That sums up the debate very well Jerry :thumbsup:

[Reffc]

That sums up the debate very well Jerry :thumbsup:

+1

I'd add that the Talk3 is superb compared with many cables of up to 5 times the price by way of comparison.